And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
ATG Test XI
1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. S.R Tendulkar 5. W.R Hammond 6. G.S Sobers 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. Richard Hadlee 9. M.D Marshall 10. S.K Warne 11. G.D McGrath
Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.
Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.
My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats
Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!
Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.
- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.
You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.
His overall Record is better than Lillee's.. Credit to him for being a warrior but his competition for wickets wasn't as great as Marshall .. So wickets per innings is pointless in this debate - especially when the difference is so marginal.
There is also the fact that Dennis Lillee overcame a debilitating back-injury in 1973. Not only did he make an unexpected come back to International cricket but he reinvented his action in the process.
This is both inspiring and clever, and has to count in Lillee's favour because fast-bowling is both a test of skill and character.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just explaining why I am right.
Marshall isn't only rated where he is due to he stats, but because he could do anything with the ball, was frigheningly fast and even in the first era of helmets, feared because of his deadly skiddy bouncer. In and out banana swing at pace, deadly accuratecy and one of , if not the best cricketing brain to grace the game. He averaged 25 or below againts all teams and pratically averaged the same both home and away and yes, he performed everywhere, except againts the minnows of the day, Sri Lanka. His record in the modern era is almost peerless, but it only supports what we have seen of him in the flesh on the field. His list of most dismissed batsmen reads like a who's who of the era and that fact the he undoubtably stood out among our greats of the era, speaks volumes.
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850
M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850
Last edited by kyear2; 11-05-2013 at 08:15 PM.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Thats all good and well but it doesnt negate the fact that as a fast bowler MM was universally more effective. Better average in all countries (barring NZ) and a better SR everywhere (except OZ and NZ). Think about this fact for one minute, Lillee played most of his cricket in 3 countries, all three of which many would consider fast bowler friendly (NZ, ENG, OZ). He never had to bowl for ne considerable length of time in the heat and humidity of India on those dust bowls nor did he have to contend with the more home friendly umpiring and flat wickets of Pakistan. MM did and he excelled !! By way of comparison, MM's record in Asia is better than Lillee's at home.
"I will go down as Darren Sammy, the one who always smiles" - Darren Sammy
Lillee's own bowling partner, Jeff Thomson, thought Marshall was the finest.
"Malcolm Marshall was the best bowler. He was not huge, released the ball late, bowled sharp, was up there, bowled pretty quick. He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did."
'I didn't bowl your little outswingers' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Same guy said the following;
Sure thing, Jeff.If they had timed me out of the hand, it would have been close to 180Ks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)