the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[Sanz]

Marshall was rapid. Ask Mike Gattings nose.

or maybe Gatting's nose was little too big.

 

[silentstriker]

I watched both bowl and If I am batting, I would prefer to face Marshall.

If you were batting, I doubt it would matter who was bowling

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Easy question to answer, there has never been a better bowler than Dennis Lillee.

Although on the subject of Malcolm Marshall's pace, Graham Fowler recently said that Marshall was a lot more diffcult to play than some bowlers of greater pace because his deliveries "skidded off the track". I know Fowler is not exactly Wally Hammon but he did face all the great fast bowlers from the Marshall era.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

or maybe Gatting's nose was little too big.

That delivery was more powerful than anyone could imagine. Mike Gatting himself once said "I broke my nose and obviously the mother-in-law died".

 

[SJS]

Easy question to answer, there has never been a better bowler than Dennis Lillee.

Finally some sanity on the subject.

 

[Slifer]

Malcolm Marshall quite comfortably.

 

[luckyeddie]

Put me down for Dennis Lillee - but then again, he had an unfair advantage.

He looked a bit like Frank Zappa.

 

[archie mac]

Just on Marshall and speed, I remember when the Windies came here (Aust) in 1984/85 he was considered the fastest bowler in the world at that stage.

That side contained Holding who was considered the fastest bowler in the world a couple of years later.

He did skid the ball and could move it both ways at genuine pace.

The one thing he did have though not tall was the fast bowlers big bum

 

[a massive zebra]

Lillee is hardly a bowling, or even a pace bowling, equivalent to Sir Donald Bradman. A detailed look at the statistics can do nothing but lead one to believe that Lillee's unparalleled reputation is based more on style and charisma than genuine bowling substance. If the figures are to be trusted, Lillee was probably the most overrated bowler of all time, and only in about 20th place in the Pantheon of greatest fast bowlers. Any bowler may turn out to be highly respected amongst his peers and/or highly influential to future generations, but at the end of the day this is not necessarily a reflection of his actual quality as a player. All that matters is any team that scores the most runs wins the match, not the team that bats most stylishly or with the most charisma, and Lillee's reputation far outweighs his actual on field performance.

He failed completely in Pakistan, then pulled-out of subsequent subcontinental series - which does say something about his character. He had just one good series against West Indies, the best batting team of his time, and was a failure against them overall. He even failed in Sri Lanka who were complete novices during his time. Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath, Akram are considered by the general cricket media to be either worse or at least no better than Lillee, but they all have far less holes in their resume - performing against everybody and doing well almost everywhere (at least much more varied places than Lillee, anyway).

Lillee is thought of as pretty much the complete fast bowler despite even Rod Marsh admitting that he had a weakness against the left handers and that he also struggled to run through lower orders due to the lack of a good yorker. Lillee was not the complete fast bowler and his reputation as the king of fast bowlers is just another example of Australians and inconsistent matchwinners being remembered more fondly than consistent non Austalians/Englishmen (a la Murali vs Warne where Murali is clearly much better than the overrated Australian, yet does not get the credit he deserves).

Please note im not questioning his status as a great bowler, just think he is overrated and not among the very best. Lillee's on field performances are less impressive and FAR less consistent than McGrath even though he played 85% of his matches in the pace friendly countries of England and Australia, and in a lower scoring era. Furthermore McGrath is rarely thought of as the very best fast bowler. IMO Malcolm Marshall is the best paceman ever, closely followed by Hadlee.

 

[archie mac]

I think I have answered these arguments before, but you rate his whole career on One Test in Sri Lanka at the end of his career. One series in Pakistan on 3 of the flatest wickets in living memory, a series where Imran did not do a great deal either.

But this time I take exception on your attack on his character, this is a player that often came into the change room to replace his socks because they were full of blood.

This is the bowler who kept bowling to a Pakistan team at a reduced pace, even though he had stress fractures in his back and was in a lot of pain. Just so he could block up an end so that Max Walker could bowl the Aussies to a great win.

If you could tell me the series that he did not bowl well against the Windies, surely not the one where he broke down? His avarage against the Windies was 27.74.

 

[Jono]

Finally some sanity on the subject.

What do you mean by that?

 

[C_C]

but wasn't express pace and didn't have the height usually associated with quicks.

Umm no. Marshall was quite in Lillee bracket pace-wise.
From all descriptions and testimonials, it is sufficient to surmise that Lillee was a 'regular low 90s mph bowler' and so was Marshall after the first few years of his career.
Indeed, for a period in the mid 80s, he was the fastest bowler in the world after Imran Khan.

As per who is better- it is a no-contest. Marshall wins easily.
Marshall not only has a better record overall than Lillee, his record isnt just from playing mostly in two countries, his record in the subcontinent is excellent and his record against every opposition is superb. IMO, Marshall has a genuine case ( along with Hadlee, Imran,Ambrose and McGrath) to be rated THE best fast bowler in cricket's history- Lillee does not.
As far as I am concerned, Lillee is to Marshall what Hayden is to Lara.

 

[Goughy]

Marshall has a genuine case ( along with Hadlee, Imran,Ambrose and McGrath) to be rated THE best fast bowler in cricket's history- Lillee does not.

That quite a list. However, I had heard a rumour that cricket was played before the mid-70's

 

[Sanz]

As far as I am concerned, Lillee is to Marshall what Hayden is to Lara.

 

[archie mac]

That quite a list. However, I had heard a rumour that cricket was played before the mid-70's

Don't go there! you are headed for a lecture from C _C about how no one before 1965 except Bradman would stand a chance in the modern game

 

[Jono]

That quite a list. However, I had heard a rumour that cricket was played before the mid-70's

Now you've done it.

And so it begins...

 

[C_C]

That quite a list. However, I had heard a rumour that cricket was played before the mid-70's

There was and i am not denying that Lillee was a great bowler. But from where i stand, there are other bowlers who are significantly more accomplished than Lillee and as such, leapfrog Lillee, sometimes by a fair amount- Marshall is one of those.
My personal opinion is that Lillee is a great bowler but he is overrated due to the timing of his emergence and his 'macho bravo personna' being the 'ideal fantasical' fast bowler temperament.

 

[Richard]

Marshall was more Gillespie pace than the Lees and Thommos of the world. Doesn't mean much about his quality as a bowler of course, but he wasn't express, no.

That is something we can never possibly know.
Without speedguns we could not possibly distinguish between Gillespie and Lee.

 

[Richard]

My personal opinion is that Lillee is a great bowler but he is overrated due to the timing of his emergence and his 'macho bravo personna' being the 'ideal fantasical' fast bowler temperament.

My personal opinion is that many bowlers are overrated due to the macho-bravado effect.
That's why so many people are stupid enough to suggest Warne is better than Murali.

 

[Richard]

That quite a list. However, I had heard a rumour that cricket was played before the mid-70's

What I'd say is that only from the 70s onwards can you compare.
Anything before about 1970 has to be, IMO, considered in a different plane to what came after it.
Or at least, in terms of bowling.