Choose the two opening bowlers for Post Packer World XI

[The Sean]

As for Lillee, did he play or achieve that much post-Packer? He certainly was not as fast as he used to be. I see him more as a 70s player than an 80s one. Also, in terms of fast bowlers, I really cannot fully assess a pacer until he has achieved something in the subcontinent, and Lillee lacks in this category, for lack of opportunity if nothing else.

Lillee's first couple of years after Packer were some of his most successful ever. He came back from WSC a slower but smarter bowler to the tearaway of the early-mid 1970s. His first 26 Tests after WSC (up to the end of 1981) yielded 144 wickets at 22 - and that includes his infamous Pakistan tour. Without those three Tests his other 23 matches produced 141 wickets at 20.

It was only from 1982-84 that his performances - hindered by injury - fell , which produced the decline in his numbers from superb to just very good.

 

[shankar]

Marshall and Hadlee

 

[Harry Harrison]

Choose two from the following list of fast bowlers to open your bowling.

Remember, we will choose one spinner. The top runners up from that poll and this one will be competing for the last bowling slot.

Keeping the cut off for the opening bowlers in this world XI at 100 wickets and avg < 25. Giving a wild card to Waqar coz he is missing out only on decimals.

Imran Khan (Pak) 1979-1992 66 101 2156.5 528 5234 269 8/58 14/116 19.45 2.42 48.1 18 5
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 1980-1990 60 103 2590.2 684 6386 324 9/52 15/123 19.70 2.46 47.9 30 7
MD Marshall (WI) 1980-1991 78 147 2852.4 602 7611 373 7/22 11/89 20.40 2.66 45.8 22 4
J Garner (WI) 1979-1987 51 97 1913.1 518 4550 221 6/56 9/108 20.58 2.37 51.9 7 0
CEL Ambrose (WI) 1988-2000 96 175 3606.5 965 8401 397 8/45 11/84 21.16 2.32 54.5 22 3
GD McGrath (Aus) 1993-2007 120 235 4747.3 1427 11930 549 8/24 10/27 21.73 2.51 51.8 29 3
AA Donald (SA) 1992-2002 69 123 2484.2 628 7113 316 7/84 12/139 22.50 2.86 47.1 19 2
MA Holding (WI) 1979-1987 47 88 1628.2 355 4550 192 6/21 11/107 23.69 2.79 50.8 9 1
SM Pollock (SA) 1995-2008 100 186 3827.2 1144 9238 389 7/87 10/147 23.74 2.41 59.0 15 1
Wasim Akram (Pak) 1985-2001 92 160 3349.2 770 8728 367 7/119 11/110 23.78 2.60 54.7 21 4
DW Steyn (SA) 2004-2009 26 48 867.0 152 3177 132 6/49 10/91 24.06 3.66 39.4 10 3
IR Bishop (WI) 1989-1998 43 76 1401.1 288 3909 161 6/40 8/57 24.27 2.78 52.2 6 0
DK Lillee (Aus) 1979-1984 38 70 1614.0 387 4476 184 7/83 11/138 24.32 2.77 52.6 11 3
CA Walsh (WI) 1984-2001 130 238 4922.4 1115 12554 510 7/37 13/55 24.61 2.55 57.9 22 3
BA Reid (Aus) 1985-1992 27 42 1040.4 244 2784 113 7/51 13/148 24.63 2.67 55.2 5 2
Waqar Younis (Pak) 1989-2003 73 128 2252.5 422 7374 293 7/76 12/130 25.16 3.27 46.1 16 4

Imran Khan and Marshall. A real fearsome combination of pace and aggression. Guys who have not seen both of these bowling on their peak, don't comment on it. I would love if someone has seen them both on their peak and he comment.

 

[andruid]

Went for Mcgrath and Garner on the assumption ther will be a 1st change poll where I can pick one of the other quicks.

 

[weldone]

Hadlee and Marshall...Imran, McGrath, Ambrose and Wasim missed by a whisker...

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath and Marshall for mine.

 

[Burgey]

McGrath and Marshall for mine.

This

 

[archie mac]

love it how Lillee is being chosen over Hadlee,despite his average being some 8 points higher.

Oh, I forgot: Lillee is Australian and it would be unheard of for a New Zealand bowler to be considered better than him.

I always thought that if roles were reversed and Lillee was a New Zealander, and Hadlee and Australian, and they ended up with the same career stats, people would consider Hadlee to be much better. Think about it.

Let me say it again!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone who played with or against including Hadlee thought Lillee the best bowler ever, Throw in three years with WSC when at his peak and Lillee is the best for many, still Hadlee was a great bowler, and if you want to choose him instead of Lillee I would have no problems with that, but don't spout crap

I think Richards (Viv) the best batsman of that era, now he is not Aust. Explain that to me?

 

[Burgey]

Imran Khan and Marshall. A real fearsome combination of pace and aggression. Guys who have not seen both of these bowling on their peak, don't comment on it. I would love if someone has seen them both on their peak and he comment.

Imran for the all rounder's spot for mine, but he would certainly be in my XI.

Also says something that Garner has all of two votes. I realise he didn't take the bulk wickets of others, but his average is amazing.

 

[Days of Grace]

not sure of that D.O.G. martin crowe's stats are inferior to doug walters'. but he is likely to be considered the better batsman, and he was.

national bias doesnt have much to do with lillee's popularity. even hadlee used to imagine lillee's bowling action at the top of his run up to inspire himself. their strike rates are similar. they both took 5 wickets/ test on average. the difference in their overall bowling average is about 1 run. and it is attributed to hadlee's marginally better economy rate. lillee being faster than hadlee was also a little more expensive. lillee was an out and out fast bowler. he was a lee/akhthar/waqar bowling with the accuracy of an ambrose/mcgrath/pollock. i am not surprised he is respected and loved so much around the world.

But we are talking about post-Packer matches here. Like I said Hadlee's average is miles better post-1979.

Also, as pointed out by another poster, Lillee post-Packer was anything but an out-and-out pace bowler.

 

[bagapath]

looks like marshall and mcgrath would make it. other polls have got about 60 voters; i was expecting about 35, TBH. once the rest of the members vote in this poll there is a theoretical possibility of hadlee or, even, lillee joining macko. but i highly doubt it considering this forum selected marshall and mcgrath three years ago for the 86-06 team as well as the all time xi.

 

[stephen]

Imran for the all rounder's spot for mine, but he would certainly be in my XI.

Also says something that Garner has all of two votes. I realise he didn't take the bulk wickets of others, but his average is amazing.

If we get Imran for the all rounder spot then we can play both Warne and Murali, which IMO would be a good thing to do as both are better suited to different wickets. Warne thrived on the more bouncy wickets while Murali on the more flat but sharper turning wickets.

 

[stephen]

Also, McGrath was better than both Lillee and Hadlee so this discussion is kinda meaningless really

 

[Ikki]

But we are talking about post-Packer matches here. Like I said Hadlee's average is miles better post-1979.

Also, as pointed out by another poster, Lillee post-Packer was anything but an out-and-out pace bowler.

Really? Wasn't much of a spin bowler, that's for sure.

 

[Uppercut]

also, mcgrath was better than both lillee and hadlee so this discussion is kinda meaningless really

AWTA z

 

[sanga1337]

Marshall and McGrath. The fact that McGrath's managed to have an average as good as 21 in a batsman friendly era is pretty special IMO.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Marshall and Hadlee. I rate Dennis Lillee the greatest fast bowler of all time but post Packer he'd cut his pace down and relied on other skills and wasn't the complete bowler that he had been.

 

[Ikki]

Marshall and Hadlee. I rate Dennis Lillee the greatest fast bowler of all time but post Packer he'd cut his pace down and relied on other skills and wasn't the complete bowler that he had been.

Pretty much had an identical record pre and post Packer TBH.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Pretty much had an identical record pre and post Packer TBH.

In the eyes of the statsguru perhaps, but people who actually watch cricket will acknowledge that he was a much more complete bowler pre-Packer.

 

[Ikki]

In the eyes of the statsguru perhaps, but people who actually watch cricket will acknowledge that he was a much more complete bowler pre-Packer.

Pardon? I thought he only gained that recognition post-packer when he had to redefine his bowling and used more seam and variation instead of high-octane speed.