This is true, but so was Goughy.Not really close at all
IMO, Dizzy is sometimes underrated because McGrath was a contemporary but he was a very fine bowler in his own right
That he was a fine bowler in his own right. It's the Windies 1980s fast bowler argument here isn't it... Is it better for your record to have a champion bowler/bowlers at the other end or is it better to have hacks so you'll likely get most of the wickets?Why? Because Mullaly, Caddick and Ealham were in his team?
no it's really notThis is actually a very close battle.
Dizzy had the better record, but Goughy often bowled better than his figures suggested. And who can forget that tour of Australia when something like 7-8 chances were dropped from his bowling.
I was a little kid at that game. Think it was my first day at the cricket too.How good is that clip at about the seven minute mark where he sets up Lara so well? Jeez he was a good bowler. Shame he had so many injuries really.
best around in Australia or the world in general?There was a period when Dizzy was the best around, McGrath included. It's perhaps forgotten how quick, accurate and hostile he was early in his career.
He certainly wasn't flawless but he was very good. Managed to get his lengths right on pitches where batsmen could eat you up if you erred.IIRC, Dizzy was flawless in India in 04/05 which was one of the first series I remember every match clearly from. Felt a bigger threat than McGrath with the new ball. It was against one of the best batting lineups ever at home and he felt like the perfect fast bowler.
Statsguru tells me 20 wickets @ 16 which is a fair effort in the circumstances, I think we can all agree.