Marshall had a pretty solid peer rating in his era but wasn't as celebrated among pundits about it, it was more the chatter among players and now has come to light.
After the India series in '83 till 1990 or so there was no doubt who the best bowler in the world was, at least not by his peers.
The pundits were too busy being mortified by what the WI pacers were doing to destroy the game, and trying to come up with ways to change the rules. Despite it being exactly what they had previously lauded Lillee for.
With regards to Lillee, from a peer perspective post Lindwall, there's only been 4, and arguably 5 if Steyn is included who's been looked upon as greatest of their era and contender for the best. Lillee is still seen by many as among them. Lillee like Ambrose here for some, is criticized for not playing enough in the SC, but firstly, you can only play who you play, and most importantly, they were scheduled most to play who were their biggest rivals and competition. Don't think India nor Australia are lining up to send tours to the Caribbean these days either. So yes, while it can be noted that his record wasn't as complete, it's not a bludgeon to be used to disqualify him either.
While Wasim is also there, it's argued my some that it's more to do with skill than results and there's definitely some conflation with regards to his odi exploits. Also with regards to his reign at the top, it was also possibly the shortest, not even being seen as the best untill Ambrose's shoulder surgery in '94. But the genius shines through and so it's been
Lillee
Marshall
Wasim
McGrath
Steyn
Looking past the genius and looking at the numbers though, it's not beyond the pale to rate Wasim last among that group. Especially when looking at length of reign and impact.