There seems to be a trend brewing. When ever we on CW selects an all time 11 (and I checked), the bowlers are Hadlee, Marshall, Imran and Warne. When ever past players or journalist select their bowlers for the past couple of years they have selected each time Lillee, Marshall, Akram and Warne.
I have personally stated previously that I belive Akram and Lillee to be overrated, but for different reasons. Lille because he played in the same era and againts the same oppsition as Hadlee, Imran and Marshall and was statistically inferior. On top of this he played primarily in only two countries in which he took 92% of his wickets and never proved him self in the s/c. Akram similarly played in an era with Donald, Ambrose and Mcgrath and finished statistically slightly behind or on par with all three, but that can be explained by playing at home in pakistan and not having the fielding (slip/ keeper primarily) that all of the others (especially Marshall, Lillee, Mcgrath and Ambrose) had. What dips him for me is that I am not even sure that he was the best bowler on his team (Waqar) and the high percentage of lower order wickets that he has taken. The lower order wickets to me is due to the fact that he was so much more effective with the reverse swinging older ball, much more so than with the new one.
So is it that the older players get caught up with the magic balls of Akram and force that was Lillee, or are we too caught up with statistics.
With batsmen we accept that stats dont tell the whole story, other wise Richards would never be the first team lock that he is, should we also do the same with bowlers. I personally dont think so, as for bowlers the aim is to take wickets as often as possible for as little runs.
Let me know ow you guys see it.
