the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[sirjeremy11]

Tough call. Might have to go Lillee, but only just. AND he didn't bowl with a broken arm.

 

[archie mac]

That is something we can never possibly know.
Without speedguns we could not possibly distinguish between Gillespie and Lee.

Well the batsman would give you a fair idea of who was quicker. That is how we have the names of Hall, Tyson, Larwood etc as truly great and very fast bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Batsmen are notoriously poor judges of speed. So are observers.
Before speed-guns we'll never know how quick bowlers were.
We'll never know how fast people like Wesley Winfield Hall were - we do, however, have the reasonable assumption that the quickest now are likely to be about the same as the quickest at any time.
With the case of Tyson it's a bit different - Tyson has managed something no other bowler ever has.
Tyson has bruised batsmen through their pads.
It's possible, though not certain, that Tyson was quicker than anything we've ever seen before or will again. Maybe in the 120mph bracket.

 

[Goughy]

What I'd say is that only from the 70s onwards can you compare.
Anything before about 1970 has to be, IMO, considered in a different plane to what came after it.
Or at least, in terms of bowling.

Why the introduction of colour TV? Come off it. People did not change over night to make players from a different decade suddenly far superior.

Boycott played from the early 60'-early 80's so his long career can be used to analyse if a great change was made in the standards of bowling. If the bowling was so poor in the 60's why in his 41 tests in this decade was his batting average lower than in the rest of his career through the 70's and 80's.

Boycott will tell you about the bowlers in the 50s and 60s and how they compared very well against the more modern players.

I honestly think widespread colour TV is responsible for much of these "old cricket was crap" opinions.

 

[Fusion]

Marshal for me.

 

[Goughy]

Batsmen are notoriously poor judges of speed. So are observers.
Before speed-guns we'll never know how quick bowlers were.
We'll never know how fast people like Wesley Winfield Hall were - we do, however, have the reasonable assumption that the quickest now are likely to be about the same as the quickest at any time.
With the case of Tyson it's a bit different - Tyson has managed something no other bowler ever has.
Tyson has bruised batsmen through their pads.
It's possible, though not certain, that Tyson was quicker than anything we've ever seen before or will again. Maybe in the 120mph bracket.

I take it you are being heavily ironic as not only are the numbers unrealistic, the statements contradict your "everything before the '70s were far inferior" opinion.

 

[Richard]

Why the introduction of colour TV? Come off it. People did not change over night to make players from a different decade suddenly far superior.

Boycott played from the early 60'-early 80's so his long career can be used to analyse if a great change was made in the standards of bowling. If the bowling was so poor in the 60's why in his 41 tests in this decade was his batting average lower than in the rest of his career through the 70's and 80's.

Boycott will tell you about the bowlers in the 50s and 60s and how they compared very well against the more modern players.

I honestly think widespread colour TV is responsible for much of these "old cricket was crap" opinions.

I'm certainly not of the "old cricket was crap" opinion. Cricket was first televised in colour, BTW, in 1968, showing Underwood's last-gasp saving of a home Australia series for the first time in 12 years in full glory.
There was, however, a very succinct cricketing change in the early 1970s - covered wickets (in England - don't know about West Indies, the subcontinent or New Zealand).
There are, in my estimation, 3 thresholds in cricket history, all concerning quality of pitches:
1900 - advancement in the actual preparation of a square, rather than just being a sort of mown piece in the outfield.
1930 - pitches around The World generally became much, much flatter. This was widely put down simply to the being-used effect.
1970 - covered wickets.
IMO, to attempt to compare the 1900-1929 period to the 1930-1969 period to the 1970-2000 time is pretty foolish, at least in terms of bowling. Because there was clearly a huge change in conditions, and on all 3 occasions you can place a pretty exact date on the change.
I certainly don't hold the "before every single player was a full-time pro nothing can be taken seriously" analogy; but I do think that cricket would be best divided into eras, with neither saying anything about the other, and worked from there.

 

[Richard]

I take it you are being heavily ironic as not only are the numbers unrealistic, the statements contradict your "everything before the '70s were far inferior" opinion.

Except that you've got totally the wrong end of the stick with that.
I'm not being ironic, though the numbers are of course just a guess.
Tyson was unique, and did manage something no other bowler has ever managed, albeit only for a year or so.

 

[marc71178]

It's possible, though not certain, that Tyson was quicker than anything we've ever seen before or will again. Maybe in the 120mph bracket.

It's also possible that my Auntie is my Uncle.

Doens't make it true.

 

[Richard]

It's also possible that my Auntie is my Uncle.

Err - no, it's not.

 

[marc71178]

Yet you think it's possible someone could bowl 20% quicker than anyone else in history...

 

[Richard]

I do.
Has anyone else ever bruised batsmen through their pads?
No.
Freakish cases do happen.
If Bradman had not occurred, would you believe that someone could happen who could concentrate infinately better than anyone else in history?
No. Nor would you have reason to.
However, both Bradman and Tyson have occurred, and there is substantial evidence to support the notion than both were special.

 

[Top_Cat]

I do.
Has anyone else ever bruised batsmen through their pads?
No.

I have. Doesn't make me as quick as Tyson. And that's notwithstanding that protection was nowhere near as good in those days.

Freakish cases do happen.
If Bradman had not occurred, would you believe that someone could happen who could concentrate infinately better than anyone else in history?
No. Nor would you have reason to.
However, both Bradman and Tyson have occurred, and there is substantial evidence to support the notion than both were special.

Yeah but as Marc said the difference is just too great. You start reaching the edge of human physiology with the 160km/h barrier, let alone another 35km/h quicker! It's just so unlikely as to render it a myth that Tyson was as quick as some would have you believe.

 

[steds]

Easy question to answer, there has never been a better bowler than Dennis Lillee.

Warney?

 

[Anil]

marshall for me

 

[C_C]

Given how difficult the 100mph barrier has been, i CAN see some quicks of the yesteryears like Tyson, Waqar(at his fastest), Patrick Patterson, Roy Gillchrist, Mohammed Zahid, etc. being at most 105mph in their top deliveries.
But i cant see someone bowling at 120mph. Not without tearing his arm outta his socket.

 

[Dasa]

I have seen neither of them bowl except on highlights and other old footage. But if I am pushed for an opinion, I would say Marshall.

Ditto. Marshall for me.

 

[Francis]

Lillee is hardly a bowling, or even a pace bowling, equivalent to Sir Donald Bradman.

There is no bowling equivelant of Sir Donald Bradman.

A detailed look at the statistics can do nothing but lead one to believe that Lillee's unparalleled reputation is based more on style and charisma than genuine bowling substance.

We did this in another thread. Lillee built a reputation on batsmen saying he was the best they ever faced. He's no hype. Guys like Botham said he was the hardest he ever faced. A rash of testimonials from another thread from former cricketers has them all saying he was one of the best. You don't build reputations on hype. Lillee built his reputation on teams finding him, throughout the 70s, the toughest bowler to bat to.

If the figures are to be trusted,

Figures should never be fully trusted. The only time I 100% accept figures are when they overwhelmingly support a case. Like Matthew Hayden's century tally and average being better than Michael Slater's by a great margin showing that no variables can tip the balance.

Seriously, Lillee's average isn't much worse than say, Marshall. About three runs per wicket. And average is nothing more than just a ratio. Do stats show Dennis Lillee for what he was, the most overused bowler in cricket history? Lillee bowled more overs in a match than Hadlee, yet because Hadlee was the only main striker for NZ, people assume he was mroe of a marathon bowler.

Any bowler may turn out to be highly respected amongst his peers and/or highly influential to future generations, but at the end of the day this is not necessarily a reflection of his actual quality as a player.

First off, not 'any bowler' can become as respected as Lillee. In fact I haven't heard of a fast bowler as respected. And secondly, if testimonials of people who actually faced him aren't necessarily a reflection of ones quality nothing is. I'd rather rely on a team of players saying "yo we had to work extra hard today because Lillee was bowling better than anybody we've ever seen" than just a few runs in a different average.

He failed completely in Pakistan, then pulled-out of subsequent subcontinental series - which does say something about his character. He had just one good series against West Indies, the best batting team of his time, and was a failure against them overall. He even failed in Sri Lanka who were complete novices during his time.

Lillee only got one series in Pakistan. One match in Sri Lanka too. Off the top of my head I can think of two West Indies series where Lillee was awesome. The heavyweight bout that was the 1975/76 series. In what was a testiment to how averages are nothing more than ratios, it was one of Lillee's most famous series. Many felt Jeff Thompson was the better bowler in that series. Thompson was in his extremely short peak. I'd be willing to bet that despite high averages, both men's strike rate was incredible in that serues.Lets not forget his infamous 1981/82 series wherehe, on what players like Bob Willis have called the most unreceptive pitch for pace in Australia the MCG, took 7 wickets in an innings. It was perhaps his most famous series where he bowled Viv Richards off the last ball of the day. He averaged 19 for that series... and that was the one series against Australia where the West Indies were at their best. This is forgetting Lillee during World Series cricket where he played against West Indians. To be honest, I don't know if Marshall could have been as effective as Lillee without his team mates. I'm somewhat of an advocate for 'bowlers bowl well and get wickets regardless of pressure.' But against the West Indies in the 1980s? That's a lot of pressure.

 

[Top_Cat]

He failed completely in Pakistan, then pulled-out of subsequent subcontinental series - which does say something about his character.

No it doesn't - we did this in the other thread.

Of all available sub-continental tours, Lillee was available to tour on two; one was Pakistan, the other was a one-Test tour to SL. The others he was either injured for or banned from playing in.

 

[a massive zebra]

But this time I take exception on your attack on his character, this is a player that often came into the change room to replace his socks because they were full of blood.

This is the bowler who kept bowling to a Pakistan team at a reduced pace, even though he had stress fractures in his back and was in a lot of pain. Just so he could block up an end so that Max Walker could bowl the Aussies to a great win.

I have neither the time or the inclination for an argument so if this is true then good on him I must be wrong and apologies for any offense.