Greatest Bowler

[hendrix]

He could out-think the best batsman like McGrath, and it's not his fault that he was faster and had a meaner bouncer :-)

This.

And tbh even amongst an era of awesome fast bowlers, Marshall still stands out.

 

[Slifer]

McGrath for me. He is vastly underrated. Marshall relied too much on physical intimidation for my liking. I guess, the rules at that time allowed him to do that and he took full advantage of it. Umpires were often too weak to warn him. Even listening to this rare, hazy video would give one an idea what sort of courage it required from batsmen in the 80s to face Marshall. I remember Marshall bowling a lethal bouncer even at Indian tail-ender Balwinder Sandhu in 1983 World Cup Final. Strict bouncer restrictions in Test cricket were put into effect only in 1991. ICC (or rather ECB back then ) got fed up with WI bullying everyone except Pakistan for nearly 15 years and decided to do something about it.

Although McGrath too relied on verbal or mental intimidation, it was more bearable for me than to see Marshall just aiming to hit batsmen to intimidate them.

Like Marshall, McGrath had success against all sides. Averaged 21.3 in batting friendly conditions of India against a very strong, Indian batting line-up. McGrath's impact on the performances of the best batsmen of the opposition was remarkable. Stats of all great batsmen (Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Laxman included) suffered severely in his presence in the Aus side.

His penchant of consistently removing the best batsman of the opposition is a clincher for me.

I apologize to Marshall fans. Don't mean to trivialize his amazing stats.

I'm probably MM's biggest fan but there is no need to apologize, Mcgrath is right up there with MM for the title of greatest fast bowler. What I could never quite understand, is y do most Australians that I know rate Lilleee higher than Mcgrath. Lillee was all about intimidation and used to bounce people 6 times per over, plus he played most of his cricket in 3 countries and lastly his stats come a distant second to Mcgrath (average/SR).

 

[Slifer]

I guess Bradman held similar views about the 70s/80s? ( he didn't pick anyone really from that era of intimidation?)

He did. As usual he picked his fellow country man Lillee even though Lillee was as intimidating as they come. Not surprised tbh. Richie Benaud did the same as well. They complain about intimidation (mostly WI quartets) then they go and routinely pick one of the most agressive fast bowlers of all time who used to bounce people at will....bunch of hypocrites.

 

[harsh.ag]

I'm probably MM's biggest fan but there is no need to apologize, Mcgrath is right up there with MM for the title of greatest fast bowler. What I could never quite understand, is y do most Australians that I know rate Lilleee higher than Mcgrath. Lillee was all about intimidation and used to bounce people 6 times per over, plus he played most of his cricket in 3 countries and lastly his stats come a distant second to Mcgrath (average/SR).

Lillee was a slightly more versatile bowler in terms of the transformation after injury. Plus, his performances in the WSC against the best batsmen were pretty darn good. You are right that he was very aggressive, but come on, you have to admit that a tall, muscular white guy being intimidating is not nearly as frightening as a tall, muscular black guy

I rate McGrath higher, but Lillee is just a hair breath's away. Plus his action really was gorgeous.

 

[kyear2]

He did. As usual he picked his fellow country man Lillee even though Lillee was as intimidating as they come. Not surprised tbh. Richie Benaud did the same as well. They complain about intimidation (mostly WI quartets) then they go and routinely pick one of the most agressive fast bowlers of all time who used to bounce people at will....bunch of hypocrites.

Fully agree about Benaud, Marshall not his top six is a joke, just like not having Knott in his wicketkeepers top three or Murali in his spinners final three.
Just wanted to illiminate competition for his chosen Australians. All of his batting selections and nominees were fair and spot on though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm probably MM's biggest fan but there is no need to apologize, Mcgrath is right up there with MM for the title of greatest fast bowler. What I could never quite understand, is y do most Australians that I know rate Lilleee higher than Mcgrath. Lillee was all about intimidation and used to bounce people 6 times per over, plus he played most of his cricket in 3 countries and lastly his stats come a distant second to Mcgrath (average/SR).

In the same thread we have one person claiming that Lillee was a metrognome who bowled down the corridor of uncertainty and another who claims he bowled six bouncers an over.
Fortunately both are equally silly.

 

[harsh.ag]

Fully agree about Benaud, Marshall not his top six is a joke, just like not having Knott in his wicketkeepers top three or Murali in his spinners final three.
Just wanted to illiminate competition for his chosen Australians. All of his batting selections and nominees were fair and spot on though.

Spot on. The final selections in his team were fine, but the nominations were not. (Only for bowling).

An additional point, since we all know that Viv and Lara did amazing work at number 3 (both averaging 60 in around 45 tests), why don't people not nominate them for that position in the absence of Bradman? The same goes for Sobers, but in his case I can understand the reasons might be that a) he is perhaps the best number 6 ever and b) you want him to bowl a bit (though that still isn't a perfect reason, seeing how well Kallis has done).

 

[kyear2]

Lillee was a slightly more versatile bowler in terms of the transformation after injury. Plus, his performances in the WSC against the best batsmen were pretty darn good. You are right that he was very aggressive, but come on, you have to admit that a tall, muscular white guy being intimidating is not nearly as frightening as a tall, muscular black guy

I rate McGrath higher, but Lillee is just a hair breath's away. Plus his action really was gorgeous.

What?

Moving on, all bowlers have to transform as they get older, and the great ones do. And while he had the most wickets in WSC his average was the same as his overall career, 23 and the same as Holdings and higher than Procter and Imran's though they played in far fewer matches.
Love him as a bowler though, though thought he was an a#$ and too mant times in his celebrations deliberately ran straight down the track and leaped and landed in front of the batsman scuffing up the pitch and something that would surely get him at least warned today. Rate him highly though not as high as Marshall, Mcgrath and Ambrose and justabout the same as Trueman, Holding and just above Lindwall and Garner.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Sangakkara performs better on the low slow pitches of Sri Lanka than he does on faster, higher bouncing wickets (New Zealand, Australia, South Africa) and he has played the great majority of his career in these conditions, and his dominace has been similar but not to the same extent as Sehwag and Mahela. These pitches are not suited for fast bowling but very condusive to spin bowling as are the pitches we just witnessed in India. When most people call pitches flat it is with fast bowling in mind and that it is slow and low, doesn't carry to slip or seam where few fast bowlers thrieve (Marshall, Holding, Mcgrath) and are a true test (one Lillee never passed and does factor into his rating).
Is anyone denying the fact that Murali benefitted from playing his home matches in Sri Lanka and in particular his home ground. The pitches were tailor made to suit spin bowling and the batsmen that grow up in these conditions. How else can you explain the difference between his home average of 19 and his away average of 27, that is not the home and away numbers of the greatest bolwer ever. Again in terms of Sanga, most touring teams don't have spinners of the catergory of Murali or Warne (he averaged 20 in Sri Lanka) and so when most teams travel with substandard spinners or unprepared fast bowlers they are taken apart. Also part of the knock on Sanga is not only the home pitches, but the way he murders the minnows after struggling againts a less than mighty Aussie attack down under.
So with regard to Murali it is the home pitches and the fact that he did take so many wickets againts Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (and he played againts England as well and got to bowl to Harmisson and other tailenders and still averaged more than he averaged vs the minnows) that works againts him. And for Warne being penalised for not bowling to his own team, (this would be the same Ponting who in another thread being called weak againts quality spin) he played againts the two best players of spin ever with Lara calling him the best he has seen, and two. In another thread when comparing the relative merrits of Bradman and Headley and pointing out that since they had similar averages vs England nd where the separation came was that Bradman got to play againts India and South Africa at home, Headley got to face Grimmett, Ironmonger and co in Australia. It was suggested that Bradman would have done the same to O'Reilly and Grimmett as he would have done to the minnow of his day, so as laughable as that was (Bradman averaged over 170 vs both teams), why is it so hard to fathom that Warne would have been succesful againts the Aussie batsmen, especially considering how he mastered bowling in one of the most spin unfriendly coutries (outside of the SCG) at home.
When Cricinfo voted for their All Time XI three players were unanimous selections, they were Bradman, Sobers and Warne. When Wisden selected their players of the century they were Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne and Richards. Warne mastered the most difficult art in cricket (along with opening) and did it better than anyone else. Unlike Murali he performed just as well at home and away and did it while helping make that Australian team one of the two best in history.
Enough for me to be called the greatest spinner ever.

1)Did you even watch the last SL Aus series? If you did then come back to me and explain how Sangakkara "struggled" in Australia, instead of just making up things.

2) If the pitches are conducive to spin bowling then they cannot be flat so you can't take credit away. Does this mean that performances on pitches which are only conducive to fast bowling should be downgraded if there is no help for the spinner?

3) Murali may be 19 at home and 27 away but Warne is 26 at home and 25 away. Murali is miles better in Sri Lanka than Warne is in Australia, while Warne isn't that much better away, especially when you consider he got lucky enough to play England 22 times (as opposed to Murali's 6), who were virtual minnows against spinners through most of that period.

4) This minnow and cheap wcket business is too simplistic. I noticed that Warne averaged 9 in the UAE over 2 tests. Checking this further I saw that after Mcgrath did his usual top order damage, Warne turns up and removes Abdul Razzaq, Faisal Iqbal, Saqlain Mushtaq and Waqar Younis. Second innings gets Imran Nazir, Faisal Iqbal, Shoaib Akhtar and Waqar Younis. Second test first innings he gets Imran Farhat, Faisal Iqbal, Rashid Latif, Mohammad Sami and Kaneria, second innings Misbah ul Haq, Saqlain Mushtaq and Rashid Latif
The point is shouldn't these wickets be scrapped and dismissed as minnow? Pak were playing a minnow batting lineup in that series. It's not so easy to define minnow after all and I'd guess that some of the Zimbabwe lineups that Murali bowled at in the 90s were better than this Pakistan lineup.

 

[harsh.ag]

In the same thread we have one person claiming that Lillee was a metrognome who bowled down the corridor of uncertainty and another who claims he bowled six bouncers an over.
Fortunately both are equally silly.

Oh come on, I think we can all agree that the metronome comment was more silly

 

[Slifer]

In the same thread we have one person claiming that Lillee was a metrognome who bowled down the corridor of uncertainty and another who claims he bowled six bouncers an over.
Fortunately both are equally silly.

6 bouncers an over was a bit of an exagerration (ne reasonable person would understand a hyperbole when they saw one) but Lillee was notorious for his bumpers (ask Sobers for one) so my claim in retrospect wasnt silly, it was a well known fact.

 

[coolkuna]

I'm probably MM's biggest fan but there is no need to apologize, Mcgrath is right up there with MM for the title of greatest fast bowler. What I could never quite understand, is y do most Australians that I know rate Lilleee higher than Mcgrath. Lillee was all about intimidation and used to bounce people 6 times per over, plus he played most of his cricket in 3 countries and lastly his stats come a distant second to Mcgrath (average/SR).

Just in my case, maybe I watched much more of Marshall (and West Indian bowlers) terrorizing tail-enders than I did of Lillee, so it probably has left a psychological bias. I have no issues with short-pitched bowling as a strategy. But when it becomes ridiculously apparent that the aim of the bowler is to injure the batsman rather than get him out, then it becomes rather disturbing.

The video which I posted previously of Marshall clearly trying to injure the Indian batsmen wasn't a one-off by any means. I had seen that several times by other West Indian bowlers of the time as well. It was disturbingly frequent in the 80s, especially during Richard's captaincy.

Nevertheless, it would have been interesting to see how Marshall would have bowled in today's times when pitches and rules are much more batsmen-friendly, and batsmen much more aggressive.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

6 bouncers an over was a bit of an exagerration (ne reasonable person would understand a hyperbole when they saw one) but Lillee was notorious for his bumpers (ask Sobers for one) so my claim in retrospect wasnt silly, it was a well known fact.

I'm afraid you drew a blank. I recognise hyperbole but I'm not a reasonable person.

 

[Coronis]

Fully agree about Benaud, Marshall not his top six is a joke, just like not having Knott in his wicketkeepers top three or Murali in his spinners final three.
Just wanted to illiminate competition for his chosen Australians. All of his batting selections and nominees were fair and spot on though.

His excuse would be to do with Murali's action. Why was Qadir there anyway?

 

[hendrix]

Lillee was a slightly more versatile bowler in terms of the transformation after injury. Plus, his performances in the WSC against the best batsmen were pretty darn good. You are right that he was very aggressive, but come on, you have to admit that a tall, muscular white guy being intimidating is not nearly as frightening as a tall, muscular black guy

I rate McGrath higher, but Lillee is just a hair breath's away. Plus his action really was gorgeous.

not to be a white knight or anything, but WTF?

 

[kyear2]

1)Did you even watch the last SL Aus series? If you did then come back to me and explain how Sangakkara "struggled" in Australia, instead of just making up things.

2) If the pitches are conducive to spin bowling then they cannot be flat so you can't take credit away. Does this mean that performances on pitches which are only conducive to fast bowling should be downgraded if there is no help for the spinner?

3) Murali may be 19 at home and 27 away but Warne is 26 at home and 25 away. Murali is miles better in Sri Lanka than Warne is in Australia, while Warne isn't that much better away, especially when you consider he got lucky enough to play England 22 times (as opposed to Murali's 6), who were virtual minnows against spinners through most of that period.

4) This minnow and cheap wcket business is too simplistic. I noticed that Warne averaged 9 in the UAE over 2 tests. Checking this further I saw that after Mcgrath did his usual top order damage, Warne turns up and removes Abdul Razzaq, Faisal Iqbal, Saqlain Mushtaq and Waqar Younis. Second innings gets Imran Nazir, Faisal Iqbal, Shoaib Akhtar and Waqar Younis. Second test first innings he gets Imran Farhat, Faisal Iqbal, Rashid Latif, Mohammad Sami and Kaneria, second innings Misbah ul Haq, Saqlain Mushtaq and Rashid Latif
The point is shouldn't these wickets be scrapped and dismissed as minnow? Pak were playing a minnow batting lineup in that series. It's not so easy to define minnow after all and I'd guess that some of the Zimbabwe lineups that Murali bowled at in the 90s were better than this Pakistan lineup.

1) Did watch it, and I didn't see him plunder 3 hundreds in a row though he was increasing in confidence as the tour progressed and I was disappointed when he got hurt as I wanted to see him score that hundred.

2) That was explained above if you cared to read it. They are low, slow pitches which turns and conducive to spin. Two points, All batsmen are better at home as they are accustomed to their home pitches and two most non sub continent teams don't have the spinners to properly utilize the conditions. If you wantched the last test series in India, because Australia normally plays three fast bowlers and the pitches were totally non condusive to fast bowlers (flat) when India was batting the pitch looked for the most part flat. There was no seam movement and the ball hardly carried to the keeper, when India bowled the Aussies were all at sea because India played 3 spinners who knew how to exploit the conditions. Also note though that Lyon improved as the series went on and he understood the pitches more.

3) And for why Murali performed better in Sri Lanka than Warne in Australia, The Sri Lankan pitches were tailored for Murali and are the most spin friendly pitches in cricket, the SCG aside Australia's are the worse. More telling is that Warne's best numbers also came in Sri Lanka vs batsmen extremely well versed in the art of playing spin as he averages just about 20.

4) I am just wondering if you are trying to suggest that Murali didn't also take tail end wickets because he did, all spinners do and Murali didn't have to compete too hard with his fellow bowlers for them either.
It easier to bowl againts the minnows, don't know if you saw the last W.I. series but Shillingford looked like Murali in the series, and we know that he's not.

 

[akilana]

All the points have been countered before anyway.

You can compare their performances in SA, England,WI, India, NZ, Pakistan or any where agaisnt the same teams and you will find that there's no difference between them because Murali doesn't rely on pitches. It's convenient for you to repeat the same "doctored pitches" allegation but it has been countered and you haven't reply to that.

 

[kyear2]

Kindly explain the disparity then between his home and away average and would like for you to say outright that the pitches in Sri Lanka are not condudice to spin and blunts the effectiveness of fast bowling.

 

[akilana]

Kindly look a their performances in all countries and tell me if there's any difference between their away performances. Will answer your question after that. Thanks

 

[Slifer]

Just in my case, maybe I watched much more of Marshall (and West Indian bowlers) terrorizing tail-enders than I did of Lillee, so it probably has left a psychological bias. I have no issues with short-pitched bowling as a strategy. But when it becomes ridiculously apparent that the aim of the bowler is to injure the batsman rather than get him out, then it becomes rather disturbing.

The video which I posted previously of Marshall clearly trying to injure the Indian batsmen wasn't a one-off by any means. I had seen that several times by other West Indian bowlers of the time as well. It was disturbingly frequent in the 80s, especially during Richard's captaincy.

Nevertheless, it would have been interesting to see how Marshall would have bowled in today's times when pitches and rules are much more batsmen-friendly, and batsmen much more aggressive.

What WI fast bowlers dished out (which is over exaggerated) is no different from what WI teams from the past had suffered prior to the 4 prong. Admittedly it was probably uncalled for vs teams like India but teams like England and Australia deserved all the bumpers that they received. Batsmen like Weekes, Walcott, Lloyd,Sobers even Richards himself can testify to being bumped (sometimes into submission) by Oz/Eng teams of the past.

To the question of MM in more restrictive times, well I've always point to the fact that Courtney Walsh for example was a contemporary of MM and he bowled up until 2000 where bouncers were restricted, 15 over rate etc and he still excelled and Walsh was in no way in the same class as MM. Additionally, if ne one (not saying u) is goin to downgrade MM then we might as well downgrade all the fast bowlers prior to the 'batmen-friendly-era" .