ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[Francis]

Just plain best fast bowlers?

1. Dennis Lillee
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Sir Richard Hadlee
4. Glenn McGrath
5. Wasim Akram

I so desperately want to put Akram ahead of McGrath because he's far more entertaining... but I'll say McGrath... only just.

 

[honestbharani]

Interesting point.

I wonder what would happen if we did a similar thing on here - although I fear it would end up being hijacked by terracers.

We can always give it a shot, but we have to maintain our wits and our cool.

 

[marc71178]

I don't have the time to do something like this now, but maybe in a month or 2 I might be able to.

 

[a10khan]

too many australians for my liking in that list

 

[Ikki]

Well...special thanks to Francis. Terrific read.

 

[SJS]

ESPN'S LEGENDS OF CRICKET (www.legendsofcricket.tv)
It's interesting when you get voters like Richie Benaud who'd vote for SF Banes in their top ten etc. And then you'd have someone like Sunil Gavaskar who'd list someone like Bishan Bedi.

I presume you feel these two worthies are not, in your opinion, deserving of a place in the fifty.

 

[SJS]

When someone can explain to me how/why Dennis Lillee considered a better cricketer let alone bowler than both Malcolm Marshall and Hadlee i would really like to hear that argument.

You ask anybody who saw him in the 70/80s and they'll tell you he's the best ever. Botham said he was the best bowler ever, Hadlee says he's the best fast bowler ever. He is renound as the only complete bowler in cricket history in that he could do anything. He had pace that intimidated batsman that Hadlee didn't have... yet he had Hadlee's control.

Lillee was a big impact man as well. Against a world XI he took his REAL career best figures of 8-27 I think. His last six wickets went for no runs. In sanctioned games his most famous was in 1981 when he demolished arguably the best cricket team in history, the West Indies, by taking 7 wickets.

People here tend to care a lot about stats and stats seem to lead them to think who's better than who. Things like eras, conditions, history etc come into play. Lillee played in perhaps crickets toughest era and worked on becoming a complete bowler that could bowl in most conditions (he failed in Pakistan).

In fact had he not joined World Series Cricket, no doubt he would have passed the 400 mark and everybody knew it. England only ever won one Ashes when he played too... Botham's Ashes.

Really I don't see why Lillee shouldn't be that high. One could easily argue Marshall fed off his three other fast bowlers, especially Joel Garner. Others can use the case that Hadlee got wickets because he had nobody to contend with and he was good enough to get them... only it took long spells. Lillee in 1981 had a year that was almost similar to Warne's 2005. While McGrath didn't play some games, and that allowed Warne to get more wickets, Thompson was out for a little while in 1981 as well.

I maintain that the best judge of a cricketer is the eye. At the start of 2005 I was ready to call Adam Gilchrist the best cricketer since the turn of the century... I wouldn't now. But the ammount of times Australia were 5-200 and he came in and got them over 400 is incredible. Gilchrist has impacted so many games for Australia with quick scoring in desperate times... yet stats don't show that. In the same way stats wont show how Dennis Lillee got wickets when they most mattered, or in big games such as the 1981 game.

Thing is. Nobody who voted on that list disputed Lillee was undoubtedly the best. Dickie Bird, Botham, Hadlee... they all rated him the best fast bowler of all time. It's just a recognised fact for all who saw him and his impact on games.

Really I think there's too much stock in stats here because when it comes down to it, it's often how players rise to the occassion and deal with pressure. How they can will wickets when they need them etc.

Very well said.

I know this was over two months ago but it is so tellingly accurate that I had to applaud.

 

[SJS]

I have read this thread for the first time and have become a big fan of Francis.

Great stuff mate.

 

[luckyeddie]

I have read this thread for the first time and have become a big fan of Francis.

Great stuff mate.

He has an exceptional knowledge of the game, and a clever knack of putting that knowledge down in an exceedingly readable manner.

 

[Fusion]

Best seamers ever?

1. Sir Richard Hadlee
People who think guys like McGrath bowl nothing but line and length are wrong. Yet they keep it tight and ask questions of batsman while keeping it economical. Hadlee is the perfection of that. Typical seamers attitude too. Hadlee liked to pitch the ball on off stump and seam away looking for the edge. His philosophy is that if you do it enough, you'll get wickets. One of Hadlee four major words was "off".

2. Glenn McGrath
I appreciate McGrath very much and had a Jose Mourinho-like vixation on him last year, but I don't think he comes close to Lillee, Hadlee or Marshall. However, as a seamer, he's as good as anybody. He isn't the best on certain pitches, but I'd say he can get the ball to seam both ways on just about any pitch. It's bowling line and length, but sometimes doing something like getting the ball to jag back off the seam. I can't recall how many times McGrath would pitch unplayable deliveries that were just a little pitched up, good enough to take off stump and batsman just wouldn't play at it, going out lbw. If you ask me, his recent problems are age condusive, he's just not asking enough questions with his bowling. I can't say I blinked when Lillee said he was the best "seamer" ever because he can seam on just about any wicket and at his best, IMO, he was better than Hadlee at his best. (Hadlee is greater though)

3. Dennis Lillee
Not as good as the two men above as seamers, but that's because the two men above were specialist seamers, whereas Lillee could swing the ball both ways, used better change-up and really calling him a seamer doesn't define him well. He was everything. It's amazing how bowlers, when learning, are forced to think Lillee. How did Lillee overcome injury? How did Lillee get extra swing? Lillee is everything to every bowler and like I said, I'm just amazed at how he's what all bowlers look at for answers. As a seamer, he was brilliant at beating the edge and often said funny things to guys like Botham when they'd play and miss a lot. Needless to say, the saying "caught Marsh, bowled Lillee" didn't come about without him not getting the ball to seam. It's so famous that one could think Lillee should be number one, but the two men above me were specialist seamers, Lillee was more than just that. I think if you look at all the dismissals of caught Marsh bowled Lillee... you'll find he at least deserves top three. The most famous one-two in cricket.

4. Malcolm Marshall
Marshall was a terrific seamer, and did well in poor conditions... but like Lillee, he was more than a seamer. More of a striker than anybody on this list as well. One thing that made Marshall more than a seamer was his skiddy bouncer. It's his famous partnership with Joel Garner, Garner was 6'10 and could pitch balls 6 yards down the pitch and they'd jag up and go close to the jaw. Marshall had to pitch the ball half-way down the pitch and that made it very skiddy. This made it hard for batsmen to judge his bowling and many would rather duck and weave it than play at it and get hurt. It caused a lot of confusion. Basicly what I'm saying it Marshall was more than a seamer, he intimidated like Lillee/Thompson did, and his greatest gift was how to read batsman's weaknesses. One they were softened up, where do I aim? I can't put anybody but Hadlee and McGrath at the top because 90% of what they did was pure seam bowling. Marshall did a lot more than that.

5. Wasim Akram
Maybe my favorite fast bowler of all time. Five times more entertaining than McGrath - Akram could do things other bowlers couldn't. He was the one bowler who could pitch a ball up to a batsman, which normally mean a drive, and cause uncertainty by late swing, then a good seam. I have absolutely no idea how he did it. Akram's probably more famous for his Khan-taught swing, but he could swing a ball, then it would jag back the other way. I have no scientific reason for why that happened. None. So he might get underrated as a seamer because he could swing, but his seam positions were beautiful. He's the most entertaining fast bowler ever because he bowled fast with late swing, was hard to pick, could intimidate and scare and best of all, he created uncertainty with certain shot. A simple drive becomes a horror because the ball's swinging one way, but moving another.
Again, his dismissal against Allan Lamb at the 1992 World Cup is an example of that uncertainty. You get the sense with Akram that he didn't need to probe for edges as much to get wickets, he could do enough with the ball to knock the stumps out because simple defensive shots for the best batsman became tough with Akram. Pace, swing, reverse swing, seam... brilliant really. Doubt I'll ever see someone like that again.

That's my top 5. The supremely underrated Allan Donald would be number six. The West Indians - all their fast bowling greats were great seamers... but a lot of them had aid at home. I liked it how Steve Waugh said his worst nightmare was Curtly Ambrose on an unstable West Indian pitch. McGrath and Hadlee are really the only two pure seamers... other bowlers did so much more, and West Indian players played very much an intimidation game. Granted that's within the confines of seam bowling, but they're not looking to seam the ball when they do that, or at least not much. Hadlee and McGrath were seamers to the death, even McGrath's bouncer seams back and follows the batsman's head. Marshall's bouncer was too skiddy to seam. And others bouncers didn't have control.

Before I go, my interpritation of seamer here was one who went to look for wickets strictly using seam bowling, not someone who bowled seam bowling, but got wickets in other ways. Hadlee and McGrath are at the top because I'd bet most of their wickets were seamers.

I don't want to babble more than I've already babbled. But McGrath and Hadlee were such the epitome on seamers... always looking for edges, always probing, using control and precision, not pace to get the job done. As pure as you can get in that sense.

Just read this myself. Good post!

 

[Ikki]

I think I love Francis

 

[kaikohe]

Top 50 Cricketers

No 29 Herbert Sutcliffe ( England) - Is this the same Herbert Sutcliffe who played for N.Z. ,or is there another one?

 

[Zinzan]

No 29 Herbert Sutcliffe ( England) - Is this the same Herbert Sutcliffe who played for N.Z. ,or is there another one?

Lol ...you mean Burt Sutcliffe that played for new NZ. Suprised you haven't heard of Herbert Sutcliffe though, one of a few batsmen to average more than 60 in test cricket history. FYI..http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/20413.html

 

[Zinzan]

I think I love Francis

I don't.....I think his Lillee/Hadlee/Marshall argument has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese

 

[chooka_nick]

He has an exceptional knowledge of the game, and a clever knack of putting that knowledge down in an exceedingly readable manner.

Hear hear

 

[open365]

On the subject of fast bowlers, why isn't Curtly Ambrose rated as high as the other greats?

I must admit i haven't watched a lot of him, but his stats are incredible, and better i think than anyone who played as long as he did.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/51107.html

 

[Matt79]

On the subject of fast bowlers, why isn't Curtly Ambrose rated as high as the other greats?

I must admit i haven't watched a lot of him, but his stats are incredible, and better i think than anyone who played as long as he did.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/51107.html

Definitely, at least in my opinion. Just the menace of the guy, his height. What I've heard of Joel Garner suggests he was the same, if not better, but that was before I was born. Curtley did some of the most brutal effective bowling I ever saw.

My standard four quicks in my own 'all-time best XI' have been Lillee, Marshall, Akram, with Imran in at number four as the allrounder. Ambrose would probably be in the next gaggle of players in my mind, along with people like McGrath, Donald (who I've obviously missed out on, never saw him do much that was notable in the very few times I saw him play which is obviously my bad luck and loss, but listening to knowledgable types talk about him, he was clearly a great bowler), and other more distant legends like Spoffoth, Tyson, and Lindwall.

 

[gangsta]

I brought it up because the list isn't outdated. The only people who's ranking would change are Sachin (maybe), Lara, McGrath and Murali would be in there. Other than that it's a list which illustrates how the games greats rank their peers.

-Firstly, the massive gap between Sachin and Lara is easy to explain. Lara had an average over 60 at one point, this dipped below 50 in the 90s. Lara was often criticised for not being motivated and that hurt him. However, reportedly, if Lara had one of two votes go his way, he'd be top 25.

-Sachin, however, was untouchable in the 80s. Just brilliant... and really I have no criticisms of him from the 90s. He got centuries faster than Gavaskar... and remember he's slowed down these last few years and still beat it faster than Gavaskar. Martin Crowe ranks him the best batsman after Bradman... debateable but he's a contender. Really, for me, Sachin was the cricketer of the 90s.

So yes it does make sense if you ask me. I personally don't see any bias in the picking... mainly because you have guys from different eras from different countires with difference opinions.

I love Lara, at his best, he's my favorite batsman to watch and he's the second best batsman for making insanely huge scores in cricket history (Bradman). But to say there should only be five rankings between them I don't agree with. It's not that they're not close... it's just that there are so many close rankings that could go either way.

For batsman better than Lara, I'd go with Bradman, V. Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Pollock, Gavaskar. For all-rounders better than Lara there's Sobers (of course), Imran Khan is a mile ahead of Lara if you look at Imran at his peak. Botham, Hadlee and Miller were better for me as all-rounders than Lara is with the ball. For bowlers I'd have Warne, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Murali as better...

Of course with time I'd have him over guys like Chappell... but the point is that it's close... very close. And for me, to say only five positions sepparate them when there've been so many great cricketers... well I don't agree with it. That point of the list is that guys are so close that it incites dicussion... that's why I posted it.

where in the hell is waqar younis and inzamam in this list and why is wasim akram ranked
21 he should be atleast ranked higher than shane warne.

 

[honestbharani]

I brought it up because the list isn't outdated. The only people who's ranking would change are Sachin (maybe), Lara, McGrath and Murali would be in there. Other than that it's a list which illustrates how the games greats rank their peers.

-Firstly, the massive gap between Sachin and Lara is easy to explain. Lara had an average over 60 at one point, this dipped below 50 in the 90s. Lara was often criticised for not being motivated and that hurt him. However, reportedly, if Lara had one of two votes go his way, he'd be top 25.

-Sachin, however, was untouchable in the 80s. Just brilliant... and really I have no criticisms of him from the 90s. He got centuries faster than Gavaskar... and remember he's slowed down these last few years and still beat it faster than Gavaskar. Martin Crowe ranks him the best batsman after Bradman... debateable but he's a contender. Really, for me, Sachin was the cricketer of the 90s.

So yes it does make sense if you ask me. I personally don't see any bias in the picking... mainly because you have guys from different eras from different countires with difference opinions.

I love Lara, at his best, he's my favorite batsman to watch and he's the second best batsman for making insanely huge scores in cricket history (Bradman). But to say there should only be five rankings between them I don't agree with. It's not that they're not close... it's just that there are so many close rankings that could go either way.

For batsman better than Lara, I'd go with Bradman, V. Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Pollock, Gavaskar. For all-rounders better than Lara there's Sobers (of course), Imran Khan is a mile ahead of Lara if you look at Imran at his peak. Botham, Hadlee and Miller were better for me as all-rounders than Lara is with the ball. For bowlers I'd have Warne, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Murali as better...

Of course with time I'd have him over guys like Chappell... but the point is that it's close... very close. And for me, to say only five positions sepparate them when there've been so many great cricketers... well I don't agree with it. That point of the list is that guys are so close that it incites dicussion... that's why I posted it.

I am sure Sachin was untouchable in the 80s. I mean, not even Bradman has as good a record in Indian schools cricket.


But seriously, I still think Tendulkar was ranked ridiculously high, esp. ridiculously higher than Lara. It never was such a big gap between them and for me, Lara will always be the better test match batter, if only by the slightest bit possible, but still, better.

 

[Jono]

I am sure Sachin was untouchable in the 80s. I mean, not even Bradman has as good a record in Indian schools cricket.


But seriously, I still think Tendulkar was ranked ridiculously high, esp. ridiculously higher than Lara. It never was such a big gap between them and for me, Lara will always be the better test match batter, if only by the slightest bit possible, but still, better.

Yes it did, for a brief period of time when Tendulkar had peaked and Lara was in meltdown mode. Lara at one stage (close to when the list was made) had a test average which had fallen below 50. Compare this to when Sachin was pushing 58-59.

At the time the list was made (that is a crucial point really) its not that inconceivable to think Lara was that far behind Sachin, seeing as all the signs pointed to Sachin getting better and better (sort of how people see Ponting now) whereas people doubted Lara could come back to where he had fallen from.