Who is the best pace bowler of all time?

[Richard]

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.

OK... they took wickets at a better rate, in more variety of conditions, and in some cases at a time when making conquests was more difficult (be it through loads of good batsmen and\or wickets that did not offer seam and\or uneven bounce, the two things that help a seam-bowler).

That's what a bowler has to do. Nothing more, nothing less. There are many, many ways in which a bowler can achieve this, but in the end, how well he did achieve it is all that matters to how good he was.

 

[Swervy]

OK... they took wickets at a better rate, in more variety of conditions, and in some cases at a time when making conquests was more difficult (be it through loads of good batsmen and\or wickets that did not offer seam and\or uneven bounce, the two things that help a seam-bowler).

That's what a bowler has to do. Nothing more, nothing less. There are many, many ways in which a bowler can achieve this, but in the end, how well he did achieve it is all that matters to how good he was.

Not much insight there was there!!!

What about why you think Lillee didnt take his wickets at as good a rate as the others? Any technical aspects you would like to share with us. Why do you think someone who had nigh on perfect action, great accuarcy, great seam position, masterful skill of movement of the pitch with seam and cutters, subtle outswing ability,at times at seering pace, who could bowl great bouncers etc etc, would fail on the sub continent???

Any clues? Or was he just crap in the sub continent?

 

[adharcric]

OK... they took wickets at a better rate, in more variety of conditions, and in some cases at a time when making conquests was more difficult (be it through loads of good batsmen and\or wickets that did not offer seam and\or uneven bounce, the two things that help a seam-bowler).

McGrath has done that better than anyone else in the past century, bar Marshall perhaps.

 

[adharcric]

McGrath > Lillee > Davidson > Garner > Lindwall > Statham.

 

[Richard]

Not much insight there was there!!!

What about why you think Lillee didnt take his wickets at as good a rate as the others? Any technical aspects you would like to share with us. Why do you think someone who had nigh on perfect action, great accuarcy, great seam position, masterful skill of movement of the pitch with seam and cutters, subtle outswing ability,at times at seering pace, who could bowl great bouncers etc etc, would fail on the sub continent???

Any clues? Or was he just crap in the sub continent?

Not every act is explicable.

Many other bowlers had all of said traits too. Evidently, some just did them slightly better than he did.

 

[Richard]

McGrath > Lillee > Davidson > Garner > Lindwall > Statham.

Don't see how you can make a case for Lillee > Davidson or Garner, myself.

Other than one based on attitude rather than achievement.

 

[Swervy]

Not every act is explicable.

Many other bowlers had all of said traits too. Evidently, some just did them slightly better than he did.

bad cop out answer!!!!

So in fact, you don't know the reason!!

 

[Richard]

I don't need to, either - I just need to know that it happened the way it did.

 

[Swervy]

Don't see how you can make a case for Lillee > Davidson or Garner, myself.

Other than one based on attitude rather than achievement.

so heres your chance, explain away. Why was Garner a better bowler than Lillee?

 

[Richard]

so heres your chance, explain away. Why was Garner a better bowler than Lillee?

Because he took wickets at a better rate in a wider variety of circumstances.

How did he do this? By doing everything Lillee did, a bit better.

 

[Swervy]

Because he took wickets at a better rate in a wider variety of circumstances.

How did he do this? By doing everything Lillee did, a bit better.

hahaha...terrible

 

[Richard]

Not really. I don't need to go any deeper than that.

Lillee had much going for him as a bowler. However, he did not possess abilities that others did not. There were several who could do everything he could.

However, some achieved more with those abilities than he did. There is simply no two ways about this. Therefore, they are better bowlers.

 

[Swervy]

Not really. I don't need to go any deeper than that.

Lillee had much going for him as a bowler. However, he did not possess abilities that others did not. There were several who could do everything he could.

However, some achieved more with those abilities than he did. There is simply no two ways about this. Therefore, they are better bowlers.

no, you assume all that!!!!

 

[howardj]

McGrath - out of the guys I've seen.

Brilliant against all countries, in all countries.

Average and economy were also brilliant.

Even when he wasn't taking wickets, he'd give batsmen nothing.

And he always showed up ready to play.

Always.

 

[archie mac]

McGrath - out of the guys I've seen.

Brilliant against all countries, in all countries.

Average and economy were also brilliant.

Even when he wasn't taking wickets, he'd give batsmen nothing.

And he always showed up ready to play.

Always.

McGrath was a great bowler, we must wait to see what history has to say about him, with his average though I am sure he will be remembered as one of the very, very best.

I thought NZ had the idea on how to play McGrath, in one series they refused to play him at all, and he seemed to be very frustrated. I always wonder how he would have went against the likes of Boycott who had a great leave (maybe the best since Sutcliffe).

 

[adharcric]

McGrath was a great bowler, we must wait to see what history has to say about him, with his average though I am sure he will be remembered as one of the very, very best.

I thought NZ had the idea on how to play McGrath, in one series they refused to play him at all, and he seemed to be very frustrated. I always wonder how he would have went against the likes of Boycott who had a great leave (maybe the best since Sutcliffe).

How was Gavaskar?

 

[Richard]

McGrath was a great bowler, we must wait to see what history has to say about him, with his average though I am sure he will be remembered as one of the very, very best.

I thought NZ had the idea on how to play McGrath, in one series they refused to play him at all, and he seemed to be very frustrated. I always wonder how he would have went against the likes of Boycott who had a great leave (maybe the best since Sutcliffe).

TBF, that worked at the time, and I often wished other teams had done it more. McGrath will bowl economically virtually no matter what, your best chance was always to play him defensively.

However, at other times, McGrath had tricks that meant leaving him was not an option.

 

[Richard]

no, you assume all that!!!!

I don't. I know beyond a doubt that there were quite a few bowlers around the time who could do just about everything a bowler could desire to do (bowl accurately, swing the ball both ways, bowl at good speeds with the odd variation [doesn't even have to be a specifically slower-ball], use the crease, bowl cutters where there was no seam on the pitch and the ball did not swing, chuck in the odd few short balls for a bit of variation, bowl with stamina and achieve the role of stock bowler, but also be perfectly capable of bowling short spells as a strike-bowler, and more than anything else, have the intelligence to know when you need to be doing what). I don't assume this, I know it because I've seen it and have read about it.

And whoever does it best ends-up achieving most. That's the way it is.

 

[funnygirl]

Wasim akram

 

[archie mac]

How was Gavaskar?

Yes also had a great leave.

Boycott at one end and 'TLM' at the other on the Adelaide oval, the bowlers would start to cry, not to mention the crowd, 0/125 at the end of the first day

I would enjoy it tbh I loved watching both those bat, although tbf TLM was a much faster scorer