Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Ikki]

Lillee - 0/76, 0/22, 0/91, 3/114, DNB - Avg 101
Imran - 2/28, DNB, DNP, 2/88, 2/34 - Avg 25
Nawaz - 0/20, 0/7, 2/119, 0/67, 0/42 - Avg 127.5
Ehteshamuddin - DNP, 1/50, DNP - Avg 50
Dymock - 0/5, 1/49, 0/66 - Avg 120

Does not suggest what you are telling, or if it was the case, Lillee was piss-poor on slow wickets for such a class act. See what has Imran done, the only comparable seamer with Lillee's class has done on those dead wickets.

Add to that, 35.66 against SL, who were minnows then.

Imran was primarily a swing bowler which takes the pitch out of the equation really. There are also arguments for biased umpires in there also.

Furthermore, Lillee only played 1 test match against Sri Lanka. To make any generalisations on that is stretching it, to say the least.

 

[Richard]

Marshall 1, Lillee 2 for mine. Barnes is up there in the top bracket, but I don't have him at the very top for the same reason people don't have Grace as the best allrounder of all time.

Always think it's so unfair to lump Barnes in with either Grace or any other 19th-century players.

 

[zaremba]

OK it's probably all been said (and I've not read through the entire thread) but here goes anyway:

Marshall was the best bowler I've ever seen. The only bowler that I've seen who had a comparably complete a set of skills was Hadlee but, with a degree of hesitation, I'd say that Marshall was the better bowler, partly because he swung the ball more and partly because, at their respective peaks, Marshall could imo bowl a bit quicker than Hadlee. I'm prepared to admit that I view his bowling with rose coloured spectacles because he was the best around when I was a kid, and that status tends to stay with a player in your mind's eye (this may have been what's happened, on a larger scale, with SF Barnes - see below).

Bowlers like McGrath and Ambrose were true greats but none had remotely comparable skills - they all relied on pace, bounce, hostility, seam movement and phenomenal accuracy. But Marshall had other attributes in addition. What made him so great was that he could, seemingly at will, move the ball either way off the seam or in the air, and at a pace that varied, as conditions required, between fast-medium and warp speed.

Turning to Barnes, I have to admit that I agree with those that find Barnes' sacrosanct position as The Unchallengeable Greatest Of All Time is a bit puzzling. Yes he was clearly an all-time great. But was he clearly better than Turner or Lohmann or Richardson? It is difficult to know how to judge that.

Was he a quick bowler? Well that's hardly clear either. In 10 Great Bowlers Ralph Barker describes his method as being to swerve the ball in from the off and cut it away off the pitch. This suggests to me that he was a spinner of some sort - I hesitate to say legspinner because that suggests he was a wrist-spinner which I doubt was the case - perhaps bowling at something around slow-medium.

This raises a pretty telling question: how on earth can we be so confident that this was the greatest bowler of all time when we know so little about him that we can't even be sure whether he was a slow or a fast bowler?

Would he have succeeded today? That's a question which makes me think even more heretical thoughts. These days, bowling on flat, covered pitches, how many spinners without a googly/doosra are able to take wickets in great quantities? In fact how many people even bother to try bowling slow-medium swerve/cutters these days?

So when we select him in our All-Time XI to play against a current World XI, will Sehwag and Hayden (or whoever) really be trembling in their boots as a slow-medium swerve / cut bowler prepares to open the bowling?

 

[Migara]

Imran was primarily a swing bowler which takes the pitch out of the equation really. There are also arguments for biased umpires in there also.

Marshall in Pakistan averaging 21.45 and he played under the same set of umpires. I am wondering whether it is umpires or the bowler to blame.

 

[Richard]

These days, bowling on flat, covered pitches, how many spinners without a googly/doosra are able to take wickets in great quantities?

Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan. Warne's Googly was poor, and even without his Slider (which was considerably better than his Googly) he'd still have taken bucketloads. Murali eventually developed a Wrong-'Un (I tend to try to differentiate it from the fingerspinner's Doosra bowled by Saqlain and Harbhajan and one or two others with far less success... as well as presumably by Eripalli Prasanna 30 years previously) but this merely turned him from superlative into even more superlative.

I honestly do believe Barnes was notably superior to both Warne and Murali, TBH. Both had the limitations of being little more than 50mph, meaning that good players of spin could use extremely nimble footwork to turn them from superlative to merely good. Barnes seems almost certain to have been quite a bit quicker than that, but still able to spin the ball considerably. Considerably more than, for example, a Derek Underwood or Hedley Verity, who thrived on uncovered, rain-affected wickets.

Everything I've read about Barnes - despite the confusion in some minds - leads me to believe he was simply a quick wristspinner. A fusion of Underwood and Warne. If he was indeed this - and I accept that it's forgiveable to question whether he was and don't particularly blame some people for doing it - then him being the greatest bowler of all-time is hardly surprising or debateable.

BTW, I wonder what you'd have thought of him had he been tempted to Sussex by a sympathetic captain in 1895 and stayed there for the next 30 years acquiring a First-Class average of 13 for the county.

 

[bagapath]

Lillee - 0/76, 0/22, 0/91, 3/114, DNB - Avg 101
Imran - 2/28, DNB, DNP, 2/88, 2/34 - Avg 25
Nawaz - 0/20, 0/7, 2/119, 0/67, 0/42 - Avg 127.5
Ehteshamuddin - DNP, 1/50, DNP - Avg 50
Dymock - 0/5, 1/49, 0/66 - Avg 120

Does not suggest what you are telling, or if it was the case, Lillee was piss-poor on slow wickets for such a class act. See what has Imran done, the only comparable seamer with Lillee's class has done on those dead wickets.

Add to that, 35.66 against SL, who were minnows then.

I agree Imran has done way way better than lillee in that series. but still, two wickets an innings is not going to win you matches. despite averaging 25 even imran's performance is lackluster. as i said the pitches were simply not conducive to fast bowling. fearing dennis lillee, imran was not yet a great bowler then, the pakistani groundsmen prepared dead wickets that would suck the soul out of fast bowlers. even after giving lillee the concession (and also keeping in mind the polite conversation we had in a chennai bar a few months ago) i have to concede that marshall's record all around the globe is simply outstanding; no ifs and buts.

 

[Ikki]

Marshall in Pakistan averaging 21.45 and he played under the same set of umpires. I am wondering whether it is umpires or the bowler to blame.

I think the theory goes that Lillee took a lot off knicks & LBW and those are really upto the umpire. It's after that era that neutral umpires were put in place and Lillee does mention it, although not to exonerate himself, that the umpires were less than favourable. Personally, I don't give that much credence to this reason, but I have seen it pop up enough to not ignore it entirely. Maybe Archie Mac can give a better version of history.

Still, we're talking about only 3 matches. Lillee had everything in his arsenal to succeed but didn't tour enough to prove himself.

 

[Precambrian]

Noone, not even Marshall has done what Mendis has done so far. /End

 

[Migara]

Noone, not even Marshall has done what Mendis has done so far. /End

i think this as a joke

 

[Migara]

I think the theory goes that Lillee took a lot off knicks & LBW and those are really upto the umpire. It's after that era that neutral umpires were put in place and Lillee does mention it, although not to exonerate himself, that the umpires were less than favourable. Personally, I don't give that much credence to this reason, but I have seen it pop up enough to not ignore it entirely. Maybe Archie Mac can give a better version of history.

once more you are proven wrong. infact Marshall was equally dependent on umpire for the wickets as Lillee 42.3% vs 44.8%

Lillee Marshall

 

[Ikki]

once more you are proven wrong. infact Marshall was equally dependent on umpire for the wickets as Lillee 42.3% vs 44.8%

Lillee Marshall

Migara, you're lost. How can you calculate what "could have been called"? I am talking about the chances he apparently had against Pakistan in that series.

 

[zaremba]

BTW, I wonder what you'd have thought of him had he been tempted to Sussex by a sympathetic captain in 1895 and stayed there for the next 30 years acquiring a First-Class average of 13 for the county.

Greatest bowler of all time!

 

[Uppercut]

Everything I've read about Barnes - despite the confusion in some minds - leads me to believe he was simply a quick wristspinner. A fusion of Underwood and Warne. If he was indeed this - and I accept that it's forgiveable to question whether he was and don't particularly blame some people for doing it - then him being the greatest bowler of all-time is hardly surprising or debateable.

If Barnes really could bowl quick, accurate, turning legbreaks consistently then yes, of course it's fair to call him the best bowler of all time. But we don't know whether that's the case, is the point zaremba is making. Was he actually Derek Underwood fast, or a sort of Anil Kumble type bowler? Or did he bowl a mixed bag of quick balls with some leg breaks, perhaps switching depending on the batsmen?

The truth is, we don't really know. That's why i'm not prepared to say whether he really was better or worse than Marshall, Lillee or McGrath. Some feel they can hazard a well-educated guess, but i'm not one of those people.

 

[fredfertang]

Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan. Warne's Googly was poor, and even without his Slider (which was considerably better than his Googly) he'd still have taken bucketloads. Murali eventually developed a Wrong-'Un (I tend to try to differentiate it from the fingerspinner's Doosra bowled by Saqlain and Harbhajan and one or two others with far less success... as well as presumably by Eripalli Prasanna 30 years previously) but this merely turned him from superlative into even more superlative.

I honestly do believe Barnes was notably superior to both Warne and Murali, TBH. Both had the limitations of being little more than 50mph, meaning that good players of spin could use extremely nimble footwork to turn them from superlative to merely good. Barnes seems almost certain to have been quite a bit quicker than that, but still able to spin the ball considerably. Considerably more than, for example, a Derek Underwood or Hedley Verity, who thrived on uncovered, rain-affected wickets.

Everything I've read about Barnes - despite the confusion in some minds - leads me to believe he was simply a quick wristspinner. A fusion of Underwood and Warne. If he was indeed this - and I accept that it's forgiveable to question whether he was and don't particularly blame some people for doing it - then him being the greatest bowler of all-time is hardly surprising or debateable.

BTW, I wonder what you'd have thought of him had he been tempted to Sussex by a sympathetic captain in 1895 and stayed there for the next 30 years acquiring a First-Class average of 13 for the county.

By all accounts Barnes started off as a quick bowler and CB Fry described him as “either fast or fast medium” - as their paths didn’t cross too often I assume that was based primarily on what he saw of him in 1912 by which time Barnes was 39 – probably worth noting Fry described the pace as coming from off the pitch.

The delivery Mr Z describes he learnt from George Hirst in 1903 and the breakback was picked up from Monty Noble the previous winter. As to spinning the ball he learnt the off break from a Smethwick pro at an early age but the leg-break was what he really wanted and was perfected in a game against Derby in 1903 – he was not apparently too keen on sharing his secret but it seems his leg break was finger spun and not wrist spun so perhaps in truth it was Barnes who invented the doosra.

As an aside it came to Barnes attention that in the 30’s Bradman had expressed the view that O’Reilly must have been a better bowler than Barnes because he bowled everything Barnes did plus the googly – Barnes’ retort, in high dudgeon, “I never needed it”

 

[archie mac]

I think the theory goes that Lillee took a lot off knicks & LBW and those are really upto the umpire. It's after that era that neutral umpires were put in place and Lillee does mention it, although not to exonerate himself, that the umpires were less than favourable. Personally, I don't give that much credence to this reason, but I have seen it pop up enough to not ignore it entirely. Maybe Archie Mac can give a better version of history.

Still, we're talking about only 3 matches. Lillee had everything in his arsenal to succeed but didn't tour enough to prove himself.

I want to stay out of this debate, because I have done it to death in other threads

But since you mentioned me by name I will give just this info (based on memory from reading 3 different bios about Lillee)

Pakistan won the first Test, after winning the toss and batting on a road. He was told by Imran not to play in the next Test as it was going to be a graveyard for fast bowlers. (from memory Imran did not play?)

The third Test was again flat, and Imran told Lillee he was only playing because he needed the money.

It was quite common for Pakistan if they won the first Test in a series to make the pitches for the rest so flat as to force draws, so they won the series.

An amusing ruse was tried by the Aussies before the third Test, when they faked Lillee hurting his back 'he told GSC it feels like the WI all over again'. The Aussies thought that Pakistan would produce a seaming pitch if they thought they had Imran but Aust did not have Lillee.

It did not work

 

[Burgey]

Both Marshall and Lillee were also great bowlers to watch in action. Much as I love McGrath and put him up there with both of these others, and even arguably ahead of them, I'd rather watch the likes of Lillee and Marshall bowl.

But it's all just personal preference.

 

[Richard]

It was quite common for Pakistan if they won the first Test in a series to make the pitches for the rest so flat as to force draws, so they won the series.

By no means either confined to Pakistan or confined to "old" times. It still happens up to this day.

Is more common in the subcontinent than elsewhere, but certainly isn't unique to.

Annoys the hell out of me TBH. If you're going to deliberately prepare 2 or 4 really flat pitches after taking the lead you might as well just play one-off Tests. 1 flat pitch in the final game of the series if you're leading is fair enough for my money, but otherwise it's just a waste of time playing the rest of the series at all.

 

[Richard]

By all accounts Barnes started off as a quick bowler and CB Fry described him as “either fast or fast medium” - as their paths didn’t cross too often I assume that was based primarily on what he saw of him in 1912 by which time Barnes was 39 – probably worth noting Fry described the pace as coming from off the pitch.

The delivery Mr Z describes he learnt from George Hirst in 1903 and the breakback was picked up from Monty Noble the previous winter. As to spinning the ball he learnt the off break from a Smethwick pro at an early age but the leg-break was what he really wanted and was perfected in a game against Derby in 1903 – he was not apparently too keen on sharing his secret but it seems his leg break was finger spun and not wrist spun so perhaps in truth it was Barnes who invented the doosra.

As an aside it came to Barnes attention that in the 30’s Bradman had expressed the view that O’Reilly must have been a better bowler than Barnes because he bowled everything Barnes did plus the googly – Barnes’ retort, in high dudgeon, “I never needed it”

Aye, have heard that quote many a time. Possibly the most famous Barnes quote.

As for the rest - ITSTL.

 

[archie mac]

Just on MM, he used to when he was tired sometimes bowl a windmill type of ball, where he would sort of bowl both arms over at the same time. I remember the commentators would say 'it looks like it is time to take MM off as he is obviously tired'

The great man would then more often then not claim a wicket with a great delivery very next ball. He was a great bowler

 

[JBH001]

But since you mentioned me by name I will give just this info (based on memory from reading 3 different bios about Lillee)

Pakistan won the first Test, after winning the toss and batting on a road. He was told by Imran not to play in the next Test as it was going to be a graveyard for fast bowlers. (from memory Imran did not play?)

The third Test was again flat, and Imran told Lillee he was only playing because he needed the money.

It was quite common for Pakistan if they won the first Test in a series to make the pitches for the rest so flat as to force draws, so they won the series.

An amusing ruse was tried by the Aussies before the third Test, when they faked Lillee hurting his back 'he told GSC it feels like the WI all over again'. The Aussies thought that Pakistan would produce a seaming pitch if they thought they had Imran but Aust did not have Lillee.

Interesting. Did not know that. Thanks for that, AM.

Also, returning once again to Lillee, 3 tests in one series can hardly be taken as representative.