• 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.

Post Packer World XI - a discussion

Athlai

Not Terrible
Sure it is - ask those who brain Lillee about 4 **** tests in the subcontinent.
Well the difference there is while Lillee only played 4 unsuccessful Tests in the Sub-Continent, Hadlee overall was immensely successful there and you could argue that Lillee was a far more experienced veteran than Hadlee on their respective dire Pakistani tours.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Or he just had a bad series, like others have in different parts of the world....
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Interesting you should both say this. I'm one of the Marshall advocates myself, though from my experience the overwhelming majority of Historical/All-Time XIs, particularly those selected by former players, have had Lillee leading the attack.
Outside of this board I've rarely seen Marshall put on the same pedestal as Lillee. Hadlee has also been a cut below - even by his own admission.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Outside of this board I've rarely seen Marshall put on the same pedestal as Lillee. Hadlee has also been a cut below - even by his own admission.
Malcolm Marshall? Richard held a poll fairly recently and IIRC the majority of people thought him either the greatest bowler of all time or the second-best after SF Barnes.

Maybe in terms of how good his action looked. I've heard a lot about that- he's generally considered to be the fast-bowling prototype. In terms of sheer taking wicket-taking ability, Marshall's always the first name that comes up in my experience.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Malcolm Marshall? Richard held a poll fairly recently and IIRC the majority of people thought him either the greatest bowler of all time or the second-best after SF Barnes.

Maybe in terms of how good his action looked. I've heard a lot about that- he's generally considered to be the fast-bowling prototype. In terms of sheer taking wicket-taking ability, Marshall's always the first name that comes up in my experience.
Precisely why I said "outside of this board".

And in my experience Marshall's name is simply not as holy as Lillee's in the fast bowling pantheon. Look at ESPN's Legends of Cricket (Marshall 16th with Lillee 6th, as the highest rated fast bowler) or Wisden's Cricketers of the Century (not in the list of 10 - Lillee 6th; highest placed fast bowler). In both lists Hadlee is put above Marshall too.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Malcolm Marshall? Richard held a poll fairly recently and IIRC the majority of people thought him either the greatest bowler of all time or the second-best after SF Barnes.

Maybe in terms of how good his action looked. I've heard a lot about that- he's generally considered to be the fast-bowling prototype. In terms of sheer taking wicket-taking ability, Marshall's always the first name that comes up in my experience.
macko's record is pretty much flawless. even his 9 wickets in NZ at 32 dont look as horrible as lillee's record in pakistan or ambrose's against india. in fact, in one of those three matches in nz he did produce a match winning bowling performance (6-114). and of course, he had great numbers against every country.


v Australia 1984-1991 19 36 722.3 135 1959 87 5/29 10/107 22.51 2.71 49.8 7 1
v England 1980-1991 26 50 965.0 232 2436 127 7/22 10/92 19.18 2.52 45.5 6 1
v India 1978-1989 17 30 584.3 128 1671 76 6/37 11/89 21.98 2.85 46.1 6 1
v New Zealand 1985-1987 7 12 289.1 51 775 36 7/80 11/120 21.52 2.68 48.1 1 1
v Pakistan 1980-1990 12 23 369.3 67 1035 50 5/33 9/144 20.70 2.80 44.3 2 0

in Australia 1984-1989 10 19 407.2 87 1042 45 5/29 10/107 23.15 2.55 54.3 5 1
in England 1980-1991 18 35 715.3 177 1758 94 7/22 10/92 18.70 2.45 45.6 6 1
in India 1978-1983 9 15 299.0 70 886 36 6/37 9/102 24.61 2.96 49.8 2 0
in New Zealand 1987-1987 3 5 119.0 21 289 9 4/43 6/114 32.11 2.42 79.3 0 0
in Pakistan 1980-1990 10 19 277.5 53 751 35 5/33 6/47 21.45 2.70 47.6 1 0
in West Indies 1981-1991 31 58 1112.0 205 3150 157 7/80 11/89 20.06 2.83 42.4 8 2
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Then again, Marshall never suffered crippling injuries and never went to having good partners to being a lone ranger.
 

bagapath

International Captain
but ikki.. dont you think lillee's overall record against pakistan, over 17 tests, is nothing remotely great? i am a fan of lillee's and i've written before about my chance meeting with him in a pub and how delighted i was. so dont think i am dissing him. i just feel his record, with all excuses taken into account, is not as flawless as marshall's. i am still going to consider lillee everytime i select an imaginary xi because that man was a match winner and he was, oh, the ultimate stylist. only i cant imagine any argument from any quarter against choosing macko over him.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Then again, Marshall never suffered crippling injuries and never went to having good partners to being a lone ranger.
Hmm i don't think that's relevant whatsoever. When I pick a team I tend to go for the batsman who i think is most likely to score runs and the bowler who is most likely to take wickets. You can certainly argue that Lillee would be more likely to take wickets, if you're so inclined, but you can't argue that Marshall should be second to Lillee because he managed to maintain better fitness for the majority of his career.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
but ikki.. dont you think lillee's overall record against pakistan, over 17 tests, is nothing remotely great? i am a fan of lillee's and i've written before about my chance meeting with him in a pub and how delighted i was. so dont think i am dissing him. i just feel his record, with all excuses taken into account, is not as flawless as marshall's. i am still going to consider lillee everytime i select an imaginary xi because that man was a match winner and he was, oh, the ultimate stylist. only i cant imagine any argument from any quarter against choosing macko over him.
I don't think it's great no, but those 3 tests there really depreciate his overall record. IIRC, his average other than those tests is 23 and SR is 50 which stands out even more than what his overall record ended up being.

For me, once you get in that statistical group (a certain level of ability) where the averages/SR are that low it comes down to character and match winning ability. Lillee had that in spades and there was no occasion where he would let up - not even for stress fractures. He could be affective bowling in tandem or, like Hadlee, bowl by himself for ages and carry a side. These things are not reflected in stats. Like Warne, he seemed to get the wickets when they really mattered. People bring arguments that all wickets matter...but there are truly wickets that turn matches if not series.

Maybe Macko is the best, his record is hard to criticise. Some players may only have have 3-4 poor matches yet have them in a row and some may have them once every series. That's all I am saying.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
macko's record is pretty much flawless. even his 9 wickets in NZ at 32 dont look as horrible as lillee's record in pakistan or ambrose's against india. in fact, in one of those three matches in nz he did produce a match winning bowling performance (6-114). and of course, he had great numbers against every country.


v Australia 1984-1991 19 36 722.3 135 1959 87 5/29 10/107 22.51 2.71 49.8 7 1
v England 1980-1991 26 50 965.0 232 2436 127 7/22 10/92 19.18 2.52 45.5 6 1
v India 1978-1989 17 30 584.3 128 1671 76 6/37 11/89 21.98 2.85 46.1 6 1
v New Zealand 1985-1987 7 12 289.1 51 775 36 7/80 11/120 21.52 2.68 48.1 1 1
v Pakistan 1980-1990 12 23 369.3 67 1035 50 5/33 9/144 20.70 2.80 44.3 2 0

in Australia 1984-1989 10 19 407.2 87 1042 45 5/29 10/107 23.15 2.55 54.3 5 1
in England 1980-1991 18 35 715.3 177 1758 94 7/22 10/92 18.70 2.45 45.6 6 1
in India 1978-1983 9 15 299.0 70 886 36 6/37 9/102 24.61 2.96 49.8 2 0
in New Zealand 1987-1987 3 5 119.0 21 289 9 4/43 6/114 32.11 2.42 79.3 0 0
in Pakistan 1980-1990 10 19 277.5 53 751 35 5/33 6/47 21.45 2.70 47.6 1 0
in West Indies 1981-1991 31 58 1112.0 205 3150 157 7/80 11/89 20.06 2.83 42.4 8 2
tbh... Lillee only had one tour of Pakistan and Ambit only had one tour of India, IIRC.. That really should not be held against them.


But personally, having watched the 3 in action (although Lillee and Marshall, I only saw clippings, not the live games), I would prefer to have Marshall and Ambit.


But then again, it is probably the Windies fan in me. :)
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Hmm i don't think that's relevant whatsoever. When I pick a team I tend to go for the batsman who i think is most likely to score runs and the bowler who is most likely to take wickets. You can certainly argue that Lillee would be more likely to take wickets, if you're so inclined, but you can't argue that Marshall should be second to Lillee because he managed to maintain better fitness for the majority of his career.
Sorry, how do you know Marshall would have maintained the same fitness if he had to carry the Windies as Lillee happened to do for Australia towards the 2nd half of his career? People get injuries, sometimes because they don't take care of themselves and sometimes because of genetics. For me, the character and the skill it takes to come back, reinvent yourself and still be one of the best bowlers of all time is immeasurable.

There is little said here about those champions that have overcome the odds and done something miraculous, and more about those that never fell from grace. I don't see it that way at all. Let's say Marshall faced an all-time attack and started getting flogged, could you predict how he'd react? In your opinion, did he have the same intensity as Lillee to better himself continuously?

Furthermore, Lillee's prime was lost to WSC. Does anyone have the exact stats for those series? They were regarded the toughest competition ever played by those that participated.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think it's great no, but those 3 tests there really depreciate his overall record. IIRC, his average other than those tests is 23 and SR is 50 which stands out even more than what his overall record ended up being.

For me, once you get in that statistical group (a certain level of ability) where the averages/SR are that low it comes down to character and match winning ability. Lillee had that in spades and there was no occasion where he would let up - not even for stress fractures. He could be affective bowling in tandem or, like Hadlee, bowl by himself for ages and carry a side. These things are not reflected in stats. Like Warne, he seemed to get the wickets when they really mattered. People bring arguments that all wickets matter...but there are truly wickets that turn matches if not series.

Maybe Macko is the best, his record is hard to criticise. Some players may only have have 3-4 poor matches yet have them in a row and some may have them once every series.
The thing is, you can pick around with Lillee's record, taking out those occasional poor tests and make his record as good as Marshall's. And that's fair enough. But with Marshall, his record is already that good, even with a few poor performances, the occasional bad run of form, a game where he wasn't 100% fit. Even with all of the occupational hazards a fast bowler has to face, he still managed to iron them out impossibly good figures.

And if we're getting very technical with statistics, an average of 20 is actually quite a bit better than an average of 23. Mathetically, the better the bowling averages get, the greater the difference between adjacent numbers.

The character/match-winning ability line is a lot easier to argue (whatever fidgeting you do you can never make Lillee as good statistically as Marshall) and I would say much the same thing if i was arguing the merits of Warne (my favourite cricketer of all time). But when comparing to MM I think it does Marshall a bit of an injustice.

Should probably also note that Lillee's ODI record is a hell of a lot better. I reckon that impacts on contemporary opinion a lot more than it does on retrospective opinion.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Furthermore, Lillee's prime was lost to WSC. Does anyone have the exact stats for those series? They were regarded the toughest competition ever played by those that participated.
Lillee's 15 WSC "Tests" yielded 79 wickets at 23.91 - almost identical to his official Test average. However his strike rate in those matches was just 46 - considerably better than his official Test career strike rate of 52.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sorry, how do you know Marshall would have maintained the same fitness if he had to carry the Windies as Lillee happened to do for Australia towards the 2nd half of his career? People get injuries, sometimes because they don't take care of themselves and sometimes because of genetics. For me, the character and the skill it takes to come back, reinvent yourself and still be one of the best bowlers of all time is immeasurable.

There is little said here about those champions that have overcome the odds and done something miraculous, and more about those that never fell from grace. I don't see it that way at all. Let's say Marshall faced an all-time attack and started getting flogged, could you predict how he'd react? In your opinion, did he have the same intensity as Lillee to better himself continuously?

Furthermore, Lillee's prime was lost to WSC. Does anyone have the exact stats for those series? They were regarded the toughest competition ever played by those that participated.
You extoll the merits of Lillee so well, but that's the easy part of the argument when comparing two of the world's best-ever bowlers! You're questioning the ability in tough conditions of a man who once took 7/53 with his left hand in a cast. Marshall played 80-odd test matches. Do you really think noone ever got after him? Were there no times when the rest of the attack was bowling poorly and he had to carry them? When he had to bowl long spells in hot conditions, deal with home-town umpires or battle with world-class batsmen? Yet he just kept on taking wickets. You say his story is less heroic- there's no glorious comeback after injury and no absent three years at his peak- but if there's something boring about someone who takes wicket after wicket after wicket for his entire career then I shall take the boring bowler every time.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Ikki, would you disagree with any of these?

Ponting > Lara, Tendulkar
Hayden > Gavaskar
Warne > Murali
Lillee > Marshall, Hadlee
Miller > Imran
McGrath > Ambrose
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Ikki, would you disagree with any of these?

Ponting > Lara, Tendulkar
Hayden > Gavaskar
Warne > Murali
Lillee > Marshall, Hadlee
Miller > Imran
McGrath > Ambrose
I wouldn't. I actually wouldn't have much of a problem if all of those were the other way round. I'd disagree heavily about Warne and Miller though, obviously :laugh:.
 

bagapath

International Captain
i think we are going to have more arguments for the middle order batting slots. if i club the records of 3,4 and 5 and keep the minimum req of 2000 runs and 40+ avg more than 30 names come up. if i divide accordng to batting positions g.chappell doesnt come up anywhere. still conflicted about the criteria. any suggestion?
 

Top