Yes I understand that to an extent but to even hint that he is the "worst" of the best fast bowlers in the world is ridiculous. He is the best of all the fast bowlers in the world today and that should be an unqualified statement from anyone who understands the game. I can not understand being less than fully appreciative of a great bowler like Steyn, now closer to the end of his great career than his peak and at the same time gush over Philander and rate him higher when that bowler, howsoever "great" he turns out to be, is just in the infancy of his.
Their is dichotomy here that goes far beyond what you are saying and which I appreciate as a general comment, but I think there is more to it. People wrote of Lillee before he had retired as Trueman wrote in 1983
"unquestionably one of the all-time greats. . . He is the last of what I would describe as the classic fast bowlers . . . which I would willingly watch all day. a fine running action worthy of an Olympic athlete . . . couple with balance, rhythm, fire in the belly, stamina and big heart and you are close to greatness. His action and timing cannot be bettered."
Bailey writing at the same time wrote . . .
Dennis is the complete fast bowler who has gone on harvesting wickets long after he lost his fearsome pace. He is the Mohammad Ali of cricket, an artist . . . His long, spectacular approach, glorious body action and sheer speed combined with his highly volatile temrament to make him the most exciting fast bowler, ever, to visit these shores since Ray Lindwall . . .There was drama whenever Lillee bowled because he was sufficiently fast to beat good players . . . by sheer speed through the air. His bouncer came close to being lethal, while his yorker, especially at the start of the innings, frequently was . . .
How did Dennis Lillee compare with Lindwall? Although Rodney Marsh claimed that he did not bowl an outstanding yorker, something which Lindwall certainly posessed, and was noticeably less effective against left-handers, I am inclined to believe that in all conditions he was possibly even more formidable (than Lindwall) because his action was steeper though not with the new ball, which ray used to swing more. Ray, despite having a good command of the vernacular, never engaged in verbal abuse, which became an accepted part of the Lillee scene . . . Fast bowlers have always been an aggressive breed, and Dennis Lillee was unquestionably both one of the most aggressive and one of the greatest. He did not merely dislike opposing batsmen, he regarded them as Generl Sherman regarded Red Indians, "the only good Injun is a dead Injun" . . . Not that there was anything new about his attitude and his hatred for batsmen.
I quote these two England fast bowlers not just to show that people called contemprary cricketers all time greats, as Sir Len Hutton famously called Gavaskar in a remarkably laudatory piece right during Sunny's career itself but to point out how greatness is recognised. Just read those two quotes on Lillee - and I can put so many others about Lillee and others like this - where there is no reference to statistics when ranking a player amongst the game's all time greats. Not just that, the nuanced explanation of how and why they rated a player as great are very interesting and cricket fans should learn from these on how to appreciate great cricket and great players.
These are not cliched terms that Trueman and Bailey use but very precise observations on a great bowler, his art and his attitude to his craft. Fans need to inculcate this not so that they change their views on who is greater but to understand why their heroes were great - over and above the rudimentary and dry evidence of stats.
