Who is the best pace bowler of all time?

[Richard]

Actually he averages 4.5, it's just a typo.

 

[Richard]

Agree with that, though I don't think he's the best ever. My ranking of the top 5:

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Richard Hadlee
3. Imran Khan
4. Curtly Ambrose
5. Dennis Lillee

(With all due apologies to Wasim and McGrath, who would be right behind Lillee in my list).

McGrath was probably better than Lillee, TBF, but I'd put Garner ahead of the both of them.

And if you went back further, Davidson, Statham and Lindwall too.

 

[archie mac]

Dennis Lillee was great but don't think he was better than Wasim & McGrath.I'm saying this because Lillee has a very poor record in Asia.Other than that,there's hardly anythinh which separates these 3 IMO.

 

[adharcric]

McGrath was probably better than Lillee, TBF, but I'd put Garner ahead of the both of them.

And if you went back further, Davidson, Statham and Lindwall too.

Statham > Lillee and McGrath?

 

[Richard]

Brian Statham is very possibly England's best-ever seamer, so yes.

Possibly not better than McGrath, but possibly so. The two have many similarities.

 

[Richard]

Sean, you can be as angry as you like, but there's no two ways about it. Lillee does not have success in Asia (or West Indies) to his name, while others do, that's just stone-cold the-way-it-is.

 

[adharcric]

Brian Statham is very possibly England's best-ever seamer, so yes.

So? England's best-ever seamer does not automatically have to be among the world's best-ever seamers.

Possibly not better than McGrath, but possibly so. The two have many similarities.

Gagandeep Singh probably has similarities with McGrath too. Let's talk achievements, accomplishments and records, not similarities.

Statham was very good but he does not compare with McGrath at all, IMO.

 

[Richard]

So? England's best-ever seamer does not automatically have to be among the world's best-ever seamers.

No, but it's likely to, given that England have had many very fine seamers.

Gagandeep Singh probably has similarities with McGrath too. Let's talk achievements, accomplishments and records, not similarities.

Statham was very good but he does not compare with McGrath at all, IMO.

Why not? Statham's achievements were many and superb, and in addition to that he and McGrath were very similar in terms of accuracy and what they offered in the way of both stock and strike-bowling.

 

[adharcric]

First of all, Australia and West Indies have produced superior seamers to England's. As for Statham, he averaged 23 at home and 28 away. Meanwhile, McGrath averaged 22 at home and 21 away, largely in an era of flat pitches. Why are we even debating this?

 

[Swervy]

McGrath was probably better than Lillee, TBF, but I'd put Garner ahead of the both of them.

And if you went back further, Davidson, Statham and Lindwall too.

Come on..tell us why.

 

[Swervy]

Brian Statham is very possibly England's best-ever seamer, so yes.

Possibly not better than McGrath, but possibly so. The two have many similarities.

OK, talk us through them Richard

 

[Swervy]

Sean, you can be as angry as you like, but there's no two ways about it. Lillee does not have success in Asia (or West Indies) to his name, while others do, that's just stone-cold the-way-it-is.

but it actually doesnt make Lillee a worse bowler, thats the point. Again, it people going off stats all the bloody time, without seeing the bigger picture....

All we need now is for you balony about Lillees macho image altering people like Dickie Bird, Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee et al perception about his bowling, and the job will be complete.

 

[Richard]

First of all, Australia and West Indies have produced superior seamers to England's. As for Statham, he averaged 23 at home and 28 away. Meanwhile, McGrath averaged 22 at home and 21 away, largely in an era of flat pitches. Why are we even debating this?

Because simple averages like that aren't everything.

Nearly all England seamers before John Snow had pretty middling away-from-home averages.

 

[Richard]

Come on..tell us why.

Umm, because they all bowled well, and more effectively?

There's not much more to it, really.

 

[adharcric]

Because simple averages like that aren't everything.

Nearly all England seamers before John Snow had pretty middling away-from-home averages.

Perhaps because none of them were very good away from home ...

 

[Richard]

but it actually doesnt make Lillee a worse bowler, thats the point. Again, it people going off stats all the bloody time, without seeing the bigger picture....

It does, and there's no two ways about that either. As I've said, there has never been a good bowler with a poor average. Lillee did not perform in the subcontinent or West Indies in the little he played there - this does not mean he couldn't, but it does mean there's a chance he couldn't have done. While others could and did.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps because none of them were very good away from home ...

And if it were so, no England team would ever have done much away from England... but that wasn't the case.

 

[Swervy]

It does, and there's no two ways about that either. As I've said, there has never been a good bowler with a poor average. Lillee did not perform in the subcontinent or West Indies in the little he played there - this does not mean he couldn't, but it does mean there's a chance he couldn't have done. While others could and did.

no...it doesnt make him a worse bowler. It makes his statistics look worse, but it doesnt change the bowler he was, which was one of the very very best.

You are getting too wrapped up in the stats again!

 

[Swervy]

Umm, because they all bowled well, and more effectively?

There's not much more to it, really.

Tell us what was it that they did well as bowlers though.

Your problem Richard is that you very very rarely show much real insight into the game.

To say:

McGrath was probably better than Lillee, TBF, but I'd put Garner ahead of the both of them.

And if you went back further, Davidson, Statham and Lindwall too.

and explain it by saying 'because they all bowled well, and more effectively' is such a poor answer for someone who claims great indepth knowledge of the sport and its history.

I am asking you a pretty straightforward question...what is it that you think separates say McGrath from Lillee, and Garner from both of them, and then before then, Lindwall etc?

It would be nice to read something with a bit of depth to it.

 

[Richard]

no...it doesnt make him a worse bowler. It makes his statistics look worse, but it doesnt change the bowler he was, which was one of the very very best.

You are getting too wrapped up in the stats again!

The stats sum-up the achievements, and it's the achievements that make him the bowler he was.

His achievements were indeed superlative, but there were several bowlers whose were even better.

However, Lillee had something else apart from his achievements that often comes into people's rating of him - he had attitude, he had style, he had ultra-competitiveness... but none of these could help him to the achievements that several other great bowlers of his time achieved.