• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
One for the old times SJS, Eddie, archie mac, Top Cat, Swervy. I have seen a few tapes of them bowling, both seem to have one thing common that they were extremely fast. Other than that cant sepearte them.

IF i go on stats, Marshall looks better but i'll never know views

Marshall - mat balls runs wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 4 5 10
Tests 81 17584 7876 376 7/22 11/89 20.94 2.68 46.76 19 22 4

Lillee - mat balls runs wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 4 5 10
Tests 70 18467 8493 355 7/83 11/123 23.92 2.75 52.01 23 23 7
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I have admitted to being a bit biased against Malcolm Marshall perhaps due to his open chested action. I was brought up by a very orthodox coach.:)
 

archie mac

International Coach
In his bio Marshall gives the crown to Lillee, and as he was one of my heroes as a kid I will have to give it to Lillee, but not by much:)
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Holding also gave the best seamer title to Lillee.
I however, have a massive soft spot for Marshall.

I go for Marshall but it is really close. Both were beautiful to watch. Both guys were skilled craftsmen with great athletic ability.

Sorry if this post is unwelcome as I see this thread was addressed to specific individuals
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Perhaps depends on how you value the different skills of a fast bowler.

Lillee was probably the most complete quick in history, as he had all the basic values of a fast bowler and was amazingly accomplished at all of them. Marshall was very versatile as well, but wasn't express pace and didn't have the height usually associated with quicks.

Marshall was more successful in the literal sense, as indicated by his superior average and strike rate, but it could be argued that Lillee faced higher quality batsmen all round, as he had to face the West Indies and did so with success, and Marshall played more through the 80s in a weaker period for world batting. Lillee could also never hide, at least not after Thommo's decline.

Marshall was part of a series of legendary pace attacks and distinguished himself through his work with other great bowlers, while Lillee was the entirity of the Australian bowling for most of his career, and performed well with that responsibility.

Marshall performed in all countries in all conditions with distinction, while Lillee never proved himself in the subcontinent, albeit mostly for a lack of opportunities. Lillee perhaps played on more docile wickets more often though, given his home conditions in Australia compared to the famously pace-friendly West Indies of the time.

Marshall was consistently deadly through the middle of his career, only ever dipping below his high standards at the start and finish of his time in test cricket. Lillee was more up and down, but had to deal with occasionally being overbowled, and a back injury which would have ended the career of most bowlers. Lillee also missed a significant period of international cricket at the very height of his powers due to World Series cricket, where he outperformed all other bowlers.

Marshall was the more reliable of the two bowlers, rarely ever suffering a bad game or a thrashing at the hands of any batsman. Lillee was perhaps the more devastating, putting in some of the most famous spells of his time against some great opposition.

Lillee perhaps adapted better to the differing requirements of ODI cricket, and has a much superior record, but played far less of it. Marshall was a better batsman by some distance.

Both bowlers were undeniably great, and either side of the above cases could be argued for each. Both would undeniably make the all-time XIs for their respective countries, the World XI for any period in which they played, and would push for selection in an all-time World XI too.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Marshall was very versatile as well, but wasn't express pace and didn't have the height usually associated with quicks.
ypu sure he wasn't express from what i've heard & the little footage i've seen he seemed so..
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
aussie said:
ypu sure he wasn't express from what i've heard & the little footage i've seen he seemed so..
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.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I have seen neither of them bowl except on highlights and other old footage. But if I am pushed for an opinion, I would say Marshall.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Lillee :) I watched both bowl and If I am batting, I would prefer to face Marshall.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
Lillee for me, and anybody who's read me here doesn't need my explanation. I will add that I probably consider these guys the two best fast bowlers ever... but just recently I've been thinking that Hadlee may be a tiny bit better. It's fluctuates. But I don't wanna change the topic of this thread. Lillee for me.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
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.
fair enough.
 

Top