Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Top_Cat]

Read a book

Have a pretty decent collection of cricket books, actually. Still, not prepared to offer an opinion on players I haven't seen at all.

 

[archie mac]

Miss the analogy? :S

None of that helps when comparing across eras. You could easily say SF Barnes was the best of his time based on contemporary comments or his incredible average. But we certainly don't know enough to judge whether he was better than Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath or not. We don't know the general skill level in those days (i'm almost 100% certain it was lower than it is today), we have no idea how fast or accurate he was compared to a Thomson or McGrath, we don't know how he got his wickets or what his action was like beyond the vague idea we get from photos.

Which is fine when it's a level playing field. Someone else who played on the same pitches against the same players with the same contemporaries to judge him is a fair comparison. But when you have
1. One player you have an abundance of evidence of having lived through their career, the other who you far, far less evidence of and
2. A ridiculous amount of variables in the state of the game, the players and the contemporary critics,
it's time to admit you're guessing who's better.

I did not miss it, it was crap

You can not compare any bolwer under your guidelines? How do you compare Lillee with Marshall unless they bowled to the same batsman on the same pitch from the same end

You assume a champion from any era would have been a champion in any other era, would they I don't know, know one does, I would have thought that obvious

So you can't tell, for sure but you can take a lot into account and make an informed choice, if it is not correct, big deal it is your oppinion

But when you have silly people saying you can't compare players you did not watch, that is just that; silly

 

[archie mac]

Have a pretty decent collection of cricket books, actually. Still, not prepared to offer an opinion on players I haven't seen at all.

Fair enough, your call, but does not mean I agree, or that you are right

 

[Uppercut]

I did not miss it, it was crap

You can not compare any bolwer under your guidelines? How do you compare Lillee with Marshall unless they bowled to the same batsman on the same pitch from the same end

You assume a champion from any era would have been a champion in any other era, would they I don't know, know one does, I would have thought that obvious

So you can't tell, for sure but you can take a lot into account and make an informed choice, if it is not correct, big deal it is your oppinion

But when you have silly people saying you can't compare players you did not watch, that is just that; silly

Are you trying to piss off Burgey with that lots-of-random-smilies thing?

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1744535&postcount=6

 

[Richard]

No, Sean just has a fondness for the Rolleyes - makes me cringe of times TBH. He also likes the Wacko and Angry smilies.

And he does like to vary them in long posts with many new-paragraphs.

 

[archie mac]

Are you trying to piss off Burgey with that lots-of-random-smilies thing?

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1744535&postcount=6

I don't think they were random, but if it annoys Burgey that is just an added bonus

No, Sean just has a fondness for the Rolleyes - makes me cringe of times TBH. He also likes the Wacko and Angry smilies.

And he does like to vary them in long posts with many new-paragraphs.

Well I know your concentration span is not that long, so I break it up to keep your interest

 

[Richard]

Well I know your concentration span is not that long

I think you may be confusing me with someone else dear boy.

 

[morgieb]

He's gun, but not the greatest bowler of all-time. Very close, however.

 

[bagapath]

all things considered - average, strike rate, economy rate, wickets per test, fivefers, consistency, longevity, versatility in all conditions, positive impact on test matches, and series - the following bowlers should be in the top bracket.

malcolm marshall
richard hadlee
glenn mcgrath

if you add raw pace to the equation marshall comes first among equals. of course, when you add the unquantifiable element called style, one certain dk lillee beats them all!

 

[Days of Grace]

I reckon D.K. Lillee is overrated.

His stats don't really match up against the best.

It is those things that stats can't record: coming back from a broken back, bowling style, etc., that make many people compare Lillee to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, etc.

 

[archie mac]

I reckon D.K. Lillee is overrated.

His stats don't really match up against the best.

It is those things that stats can't record: coming back from a broken back, bowling style, etc., that make many people compare Lillee to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, etc.

 

[Goughy]

I reckon D.K. Lillee is overrated.

His stats don't really match up against the best.

It is those things that stats can't record: coming back from a broken back, bowling style, etc., that make many people compare Lillee to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, etc.

Wickets per game?

 

[Ikki]

I reckon D.K. Lillee is overrated.

His stats don't really match up against the best.

It is those things that stats can't record: coming back from a broken back, bowling style, etc., that make many people compare Lillee to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, etc.

In what way don't they?

 

[sanga1337]

Marshall only behind Barnes as the greatest fast bowler of all time IMO. Although I wouldn't rate him the best bowler of all time. That award would have to go to Murali. Averaging over 6 wickets per test after 123 matches, with 65 5fs is insane.

 

[Matt79]

Marshall 1, Lillee 2 for mine. Barnes is up there in the top bracket, but I don't have him at the very top for the same reason people don't have Grace as the best allrounder of all time.

 

[bagapath]

DK Lillee

in Australia 1971-1984 44 84 11534 5482 231 7/83 11/138 23.73 2.85 49.9 15 4
in England 1972-1981 16 32 4815 1974 96 7/89 11/159 20.56 2.45 50.1 6 2
in New Zealand 1977-1982 5 8 1134 495 22 6/72 11/123 22.50 2.61 51.5 2 1
in Pakistan 1980-1980 3 4 612 303 3 3/114 3/114 101.00 2.97 204.0 0 0
in Sri Lanka 1983-1983 1 2 180 107 3 2/67 3/107 35.66 3.56 60.0 0 0
in West Indies 1973-1973 1 2 192 132 0 - - - 4.12 - 0 0

MD Marshall


in Australia 1984-1989 10 19 407.2 87 1042 45 5/29 10/107 23.15 2.55 54.3 5 1
in England 1980-1991 18 35 715.3 177 1758 94 7/22 10/92 18.70 2.45 45.6 6 1
in India 1978-1983 9 15 299.0 70 886 36 6/37 9/102 24.61 2.96 49.8 2 0
in New Zealand 1987-1987 3 5 119.0 21 289 9 4/43 6/114 32.11 2.42 79.3 0 0
in Pakistan 1980-1990 10 19 277.5 53 751 35 5/33 6/47 21.45 2.70 47.6 1 0
in West Indies 1981-1991 31 58 1112.0 205 3150 157 7/80 11/89 20.06 2.83 42.4 8 2


Marshall had more uniform success than Lillee. I know Lillee never toured India, the Pakistani wicktes were deliberately designed to blunt him and his back gave away in his only WI tour. But still one has to accept that Marshall has done well everywhere making the most of every opportunity, even in NZ; his least successful mission, he averages only 32 .

 

[Migara]

I hardly remember SF having a sticky wicket to bowl on in Aust. in one case he cleaned up the Aussie top order on a road, which is considered one of the best bowling performances ever..

matting wickets, have lots of runs scored on them as well, although it seems SF bowled well on them.

I would love to see batting averages on matting wickets before coming in to that conclusion. I would say around 20-25, compared to 31 odd today.

 

[Migara]

I reckon D.K. Lillee is overrated.

His stats don't really match up against the best.

It is those things that stats can't record: coming back from a broken back, bowling style, etc., that make many people compare Lillee to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, etc.

Lillee was a damn good bowler, but Hadlee and Marshall were just better.

 

[Migara]

the Pakistani wicktes were deliberately designed to blunt him

Lillee - 0/76, 0/22, 0/91, 3/114, DNB - Avg 101
Imran - 2/28, DNB, DNP, 2/88, 2/34 - Avg 25
Nawaz - 0/20, 0/7, 2/119, 0/67, 0/42 - Avg 127.5
Ehteshamuddin - DNP, 1/50, DNP - Avg 50
Dymock - 0/5, 1/49, 0/66 - Avg 120

Does not suggest what you are telling, or if it was the case, Lillee was piss-poor on slow wickets for such a class act. See what has Imran done, the only comparable seamer with Lillee's class has done on those dead wickets.

Add to that, 35.66 against SL, who were minnows then.

 

[Ikki]

Marshall had more uniform success than Lillee. I know Lillee never toured India, the Pakistani wicktes were deliberately designed to blunt him and his back gave away in his only WI tour. But still one has to accept that Marshall has done well everywhere making the most of every opportunity, even in NZ; his least successful mission, he averages only 32 .

I think the fact that he only played 3 Tests there and his career was interrupted by WSC says more about his uniform success.

With Lillee, as opposed to Sobers or Barnes, I can see his true claim for being the best. Not only is he statistically in the top bracket, but damn near everyone considered him the best - even his contemporaries. He is revered on a different plane compared to the rest.

Also, things like coming back from stress fractures, designing new methods of recovery, bowling as a pair or by himself...these things are incalculable.