the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[Zinzan]

IMO Marshall and Hadlee are the two greatest bowlers in modern cricket (post 1930). Lillee would make my top 5 though.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Neither. It's obviously Stuart Clark.

Really? I'd say that Mick Lewis was better than Clark, Hadlee, Marshall etc.



On topic though, I'd take Marshall over Lillee.

 

[C_C]

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.

Irrelevant really.
Ask 10 batsmen today and they'd say something about McGrath or Ambrose or Akram.
Ask the batsmen of the 80s and they'd say Marshall,Hadlee,Imran etc.
Infact, many batsmen from the 70s are on record saying Holding is the best they've faced- Gavaskar mentions Holding and Marshall above all, so does Amarnath, Zaheer Abbass, etc.

Like i said- when Lillee came up, there had been a dearth of fast bowlers of the highest quality the world over for 6-7 years preceeding Lillee- Wes Hall was aeging quickly, Trueman had retired, etc. Roberts was comming up too in Lillee's time ( and in the early 70s, one can build a genuine case for Roberts) but he played much less than Lillee.
Add in Lillee's agressive 'macho bravo' personna and its easy to see why so many swoon over him.It is how an alltime great bowler, who is perhaps one of the top 20 best pacers in cricket's history, gets vaulted to the 'top post'.
Lillee simply didnt demonstrate the versatality of performing under various conditions available to him ( that he choose to forego national cricket and join Packer series is HIS decision,something that nonetheless affects his standing - the opportunity to play for home crowds for a lotta dough lost him the opportunity to buidl a reputation on much different pitches of the subcontinent) or as tight a reign on the best batting team of his side ( the WI) as others.
As such, Lillee doesnt merit being ranked alongside the 'best of the best' - just like how Miandad, Border, Steve Waugh, Inzamam, etc. while being acknowledged as alltime greats, arnt included in the same bracket as Chappell,Viv,Sobers,Gavaskar,Lara and Tendulkar.

 

[archie mac]

Irrelevant really.
Ask 10 batsmen today and they'd say something about McGrath or Ambrose or Akram.
Ask the batsmen of the 80s and they'd say Marshall,Hadlee,Imran etc.
Infact, many batsmen from the 70s are on record saying Holding is the best they've faced- Gavaskar mentions Holding and Marshall above all, so does Amarnath, Zaheer Abbass, etc.

Like i said- when Lillee came up, there had been a dearth of fast bowlers of the highest quality the world over for 6-7 years preceeding Lillee- Wes Hall was aeging quickly, Trueman had retired, etc. Roberts was comming up too in Lillee's time ( and in the early 70s, one can build a genuine case for Roberts) but he played much less than Lillee.
Add in Lillee's agressive 'macho bravo' personna and its easy to see why so many swoon over him.It is how an alltime great bowler, who is perhaps one of the top 20 best pacers in cricket's history, gets vaulted to the 'top post'.
Lillee simply didnt demonstrate the versatality of performing under various conditions available to him ( that he choose to forego national cricket and join Packer series is HIS decision,something that nonetheless affects his standing - the opportunity to play for home crowds for a lotta dough lost him the opportunity to buidl a reputation on much different pitches of the subcontinent) or as tight a reign on the best batting team of his side ( the WI) as others.
As such, Lillee doesnt merit being ranked alongside the 'best of the best' - just like how Miandad, Border, Steve Waugh, Inzamam, etc. while being acknowledged as alltime greats, arnt included in the same bracket as Chappell,Viv,Sobers,Gavaskar,Lara and Tendulkar.

But Lillee is ranked by almost every respected judge as one of the if not the best fast bowler in the history of the game.

And don't forget John Snow, still ranked by the Chappells as one the best fast bowler they played against and they faced most of the WI greats.

 

[Francis]

Ask 10 batsmen today and they'd say something about McGrath or Ambrose or Akram.

They'd say they're great bowlers but none would be unanimous in saying so and so was the best they faced. The Australian team recently voted for who were their best domestic bowler and batter, the best international bowler and batter and the best bowler and batter in their team.

Flintoff got voted the best international bowler the team faced with Murali second. Warne got voted tougher to face than McGrath. And the team voted Lara better than Tendulkar.
My point is that different names are going to be mentioned. Ask anybody in the 70 or even 80s who the best they faced was and nearly all of them say Lillee. The point being is that Lillee is unanimous, everyone says he's the best. In the late 80s some might say Marshall, others Hadlee, some Imran etc. But nothing conlusive.

Like i said- when Lillee came up, there had been a dearth of fast bowlers of the highest quality the world over for 6-7 years preceeding Lillee- Wes Hall was aeging quickly, Trueman had retired, etc. Roberts was comming up too in Lillee's time ( and in the early 70s, one can build a genuine case for Roberts) but he played much less than Lillee. Add in Lillee's agressive 'macho bravo' personna and its easy to see why so many swoon over him.It is how an alltime great bowler, who is perhaps one of the top 20 best pacers in cricket's history, gets vaulted to the 'top post'.

There is absolutely no basis for this assumption. Absolutely ridiculous actually. Nothing more than a guess. Find one cricketing expert who saw Lillee and felt that way. Gary Sobers saw Lillee as a rookie and said he'd never seen a fast bowler like him.

Lillee simply didnt demonstrate the versatality of performing under various conditions available to him ( that he choose to forego national cricket and join Packer series is HIS decision,something that nonetheless affects his standing - the opportunity to play for home crowds for a lotta dough lost him the opportunity to buidl a reputation on much different pitches of the subcontinent) or as tight a reign on the best batting team of his side ( the WI) as others.

As far as I'm concerned, Lillee's reputation for playing on bad wickets in Australia and England means he could bowl anywhere and everybody who saw him agrees with that. To this you once said "just like a seamers pitch in NZ is hard to spin on is different to a sub-continent pitch to spin on." But the point is that while pitches may look different, they act similarly. If one pitch in Australia looks bad and barely bounces, and a pitch in Asia looks differently but acts the same... then who's to say he couldn't do the same thing on other pitches.

I'll put it to you this way. What have bowlers, who bowled well on sub-continent pitches done to be successful that Lillee couldn't do? That answers it all. Lillee used cutters beautifully on bad wickets, and that's what many bowlers have done in Asia. How do you know Lillee wasn't just put of form for a short period when he played Pakistan?

As such, Lillee doesnt merit being ranked alongside the 'best of the best' - just like how Miandad, Border, Steve Waugh, Inzamam, etc. while being acknowledged as alltime greats, arnt included in the same bracket as Chappell,Viv,Sobers,Gavaskar,Lara and Tendulkar.

Huh. These guys played well in all conditions. They're not considered the elite batsmen because they weren't elite.

 

[archie mac]

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.

Is that really you AMZ? I can't believe this

I can always rely on you to debate your opinion, and very intelligently I may add

 

[Ikki]

My personal opinion is that many bowlers are overrated due to the macho-bravado effect.
That's why so many people are stupid enough to suggest Warne is better than Murali.

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.

LOL. You and C_C must be brothers.

 

[social]

Lillee had it all - pace, movement, aggression, tenacity, ability to fight through pain.

On top of that, he redefined a paceman's art by adding guile when his speed diminished.

He is easily one of the top 6 or so quicks of all time and many of the greats that followed learnt from him.

Marshall was equally as good in that he possessed all of the same qualities.

Unlike Lillee, who resorted to cutters when his pace had dropped, Marshall learnt hot to swing the ball.

As for those who mentioned Holding, get a tape of the Sydney test in 75/76 and watch him sink to his knees and delay the game whilst he cried over a decision that didnt go his way - Marshall would've accepted it and proceeded to bowl the opposition out whilst Lillee would've sworn and proceeded to bowl the opposition out. Holding did neither.

As for Imran being quicker than Marshall - never.

People can argue all they like as to who was better between Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Macgrath, Akram and Imran but it is impossible to say definitively who was the best.

 

[Ikki]

Lillee simply didnt demonstrate the versatality of performing under various conditions available to him ( that he choose to forego national cricket and join Packer series is HIS decision,something that nonetheless affects his standing - the opportunity to play for home crowds for a lotta dough lost him the opportunity to buidl a reputation on much different pitches of the subcontinent) or as tight a reign on the best batting team of his side ( the WI) as others.

Ok, this is getting off topic but this is a gross abuse in hypocracy. On the Murali issue, you said it doesn't do his legacy any harm not to play in Australia but because Lillee decided to actually make a bit of money he doesn't deserve to be acknowledged the way he has? Same thing, reversed and you have a different tone.

Some people here are really overlooking his accomplishments based on his macho-look?

 

[SJS]

People can argue all they like as to who was better between Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Macgrath, Akram and Imran but it is impossible to say definitively who was the best.

Well said.

 

[SJS]

There is no bowling equivelant of Sir Donald Bradman.

S F Barnes came very close.

 

[C_C]

As far as I'm concerned, Lillee's reputation for playing on bad wickets in Australia and England means he could bowl anywhere and everybody who saw him agrees with that.

Sorry but this is ludicrous. Pitches in the 70s,80s and 90s were the most pace-friendly in the history of post ww-II cricket in England/OZ/NZ/WI, etc. The 'unfriendly seamer's wickets' in OZ or ENG were equivalent to 'the more pace-friendly' wickets in the subcontinenet.

 

[C_C]

Ok, this is getting off topic but this is a gross abuse in hypocracy. On the Murali issue, you said it doesn't do his legacy any harm not to play in Australia but because Lillee decided to actually make a bit of money he doesn't deserve to be acknowledged the way he has? Same thing, reversed and you have a different tone.

Some people here are really overlooking his accomplishments based on his macho-look?

It doesnt affect Murali as much because OZ arnt the acknowledged 'best team' against spin bowling. Lillee accomplished a lot but Imran,Marshall,Hadlee, McGrath,etc. accomplished more.
Its just that simple.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It doesnt affect Murali as much because OZ arnt the acknowledged 'best team' against spin bowling. Lillee accomplished a lot but Imran,Marshall,Hadlee, McGrath,etc. accomplished more.
Its just that simple.

Pakistan weren't the best team against pace bowling either, far from it. It was just a difficult place to bowl, like Australia is a difficult place to bowl spin. It's not as though Australia are mugs against spin anyway, they've always been pretty good, with some top class players of spin, just not as good as India.

 

[aussie]

Marshall was rapid. Ask Mike Gattings nose.

yea my pops told me about that that why i wonder the bloke had to be quick, he also mentioned to me when WI came here during the early & mid 80's he was always touted as the fastest bowler in the world & Holding was still playing.

 

[Francis]

Sorry but this is ludicrous. Pitches in the 70s,80s and 90s were the most pace-friendly in the history of post ww-II cricket in England/OZ/NZ/WI, etc. The 'unfriendly seamer's wickets' in OZ or ENG were equivalent to 'the more pace-friendly' wickets in the subcontinenet.

Again your making this stuff up with assumptions when people give testimony to guys like Lillee bowling well on flat decks like the MCG.

One of the most powerful testimonies for Malcolm Marshall was one of his performances against Australia at the SCG. Reports on that pitch was that it was so dead the ball wasn't bouncing above stump-high. Yet Marshall used a variety of slower balls, cutters etc to cap off a terrific spell. Now very seldom will you see a sub-continent pitch where the ball wont bounce over the stumps. It's bad curating.

Tony Greig was saying the other day that the Australians pride themselves on having very different pitches in different part of the country. There's faster wickets in Perth and Brisbane and spin friendly pitches in Melbourne and Sydney etc.

I'm not responding again if you say something like that above and don't back it up with something factual insted of plain assumptions.

 

[aussie]

Lillee is thought of as pretty much the complete fast bowler despite even Rod Marsh admitting that he had a weakness against the left handers and that he also struggled to run through lower orders due to the lack of a good yorker. Lillee was not the complete fast bowler and his reputation as the king of fast bowlers is just another example of Australians and inconsistent matchwinners being remembered more fondly than consistent non Austalians/Englishmen (a la Murali vs Warne where Murali is clearly much better than the overrated Australian, yet does not get the credit he deserves).

obviously i woudn't have seen Lille bowl neither would you so you would have made this statement basically on stats but i think you are being a bit unfair here to the man. So much people of the past cant rate this man so HIGHLY & yet you can say he is another example of Australian's being over-rated a la Warne currently which is both utter garbage.

mind you dont lets start up another Warne/Mural arguemtn here...

 

[Top_Cat]

Again your making this stuff up with assumptions when people give testimony to guys like Lillee bowling well on flat decks like the MCG.

Whilst I personally agree that Lillee was a great bowler, why, if the MCG pitch was so flat, did Rod Marsh devote an entire chapter to it in a book he wrote in 1983 about how nasty it was to play on? In the book, he mentions Greg Chappell as being pretty vocal about how bad it was and in the Test where Lillee took 7/89, it was hardly ideal for batting. It wasn't pace friendly, in terms of being quick, but apparently it was very uneven for quite a few years before it got dug up and turned into a much flatter deck.

 

[C_C]

Tony Greig was saying the other day that the Australians pride themselves on having very different pitches in different part of the country. There's faster wickets in Perth and Brisbane and spin friendly pitches in Melbourne and Sydney etc.

Oh yes, OZ had the most variety of pitches for a nation. But when it came to unfriendly wickets for pacers, they had nothing compared to the subcontinent.
Try bowling pace at Firoz Shah Kotla and any of these so-called 'unfriendly wickets' in OZ seem positively made for the pace-Gods.

 

[aussie]

for a period in the mid 80s, he was the fastest bowler in the world after Imran Khan.

IMO, Marshall has a genuine case ( along with Hadlee, Imran,Ambrose and McGrath) to be rated THE best fast bowler in cricket's history- Lillee does not.

As far as I am concerned, Lillee is to Marshall what Hayden is to Lara.

1. Really?, from what i've heard Imran was never faster than either Marshall or Holding but he was quick.

2. This seems a bit harsh

3. I find this extremely hard to believe