ESPN's Legends of Cricket

[Slifer]

I thought I'd also state that Lillee - who played 70 tests, had 23 fourfers, 23 fivers, and seven tenfers.

Marshall - who played 81 tests, 11 more than Lillee - had 19 fourfers, 22 fivers, and 4 tenfers.

Who knows, maybe the fact that Lillee didn't play with three brilliant fast bowlers allowed him to get more recognised wicket-hauls? It's a logical thing to say.

It was said that in comparing Hadlee and Marshall - Marshall didn't get as many wickets as he could have because he had to share them. But Marshall would never have had such a good average if he didn't have his three bowlers around them. While Hadlee had plenty of time to bowl long spells and get many wickets per game while striking close to Marshall.

I think if Hadlee had great bowlers around him he'd have less wickets, but a better average. His strike-rate might not be as good, or it may be better. He wouldn't have the time to knock over the tail as great bowlers would assist there... but there'd be more pressure on batsman to score off him, meaning he could have striked better. Stats will never reveal who was greater between those two.

I see Lillee as a balance between the two. He had Thompson to feed off, both nothing anywhere near as potent as four great pacemen, yet he striked not far behind Marshall (6 balls). While he could bowl long spells like Hadlee and often did in 1981 but was more potent than Hadlee in long spells - striking around 45 wickets per balls in 1981, better than Marshall's career record. Like Hadlee, batsman tried to leave his stuff alone... while they had to play Marshall because there were no easy bowlers. This aids Marshall's strike-rate... but hurts his accumulation of wickets.

I think that sums it up well. Players left Lillee alone, they had to play Marshall and thus he had a better strike rate. However, competing with three other great bowlers hurt Marshall's ability to get as many wickets per test and hurt his ability to get fivers.

Do I think Lillee could strike six balls quicker if batsman were foced to play him more often due to a great bowling attack? Yep.
Do I think his average would go down? Yep. There'd be too much pressure on batsman to get wickets.
Do I think Lillee would have had less fivers? Yep. He'd have to share wickets.

But none of that happened. Lillee had more great bowlers around him than Hadlee, but no where near as many as Marshall.

If you want to debate Hadlee as well that good. He would be similar to Murali in my comparisons because he bowled long spells, accumulated wickets over time and his ratio of wickets per balls remained consistent. But NZ normally needed scores around 400 to start with because a one-man bowling attack can't consisently keep teams below 300 in the first innings.

Yawn!! Was all this really necessary?? Anyway, lets say for arguments sake that i agreed with u on Marshall (which i dont) how on earth could u agree that Lillee was a greater cricketer than Hadlee. They r atleast equal with the ball and Hadlee is by far a better batter. Additionally, both Marshall and Hadlee proved their worth when conditions were catergorically against them. The same cant be said of Lillee. Anyway, these r just opinions so ur entitled to urs and me likewise.

 

[Francis]

Hadlee required long spells to get the ammount of wickets he did. His strike-rate is just a ratio of how many wickets he got after a long spell. If he had competition, that ratio would go up. He played just 16 more tests than Lillee and he bowled over 3,000 more deliveries than Lillee.

Now I respect the fact that Hadlee can get wickets and bowl an incredibly long spells, he's like Murali. But I'm sorry, if he had competition in the bowling he wouldn't get those tail enders that bring his strike rate down to 50. Without those extra wickets his average would go up too.

I'm willing to bet if there was a stat for how many times one of these two guys got 3 or more wickets in a 15 over period... Lillee would win. That's impact. If there was a stat for how many times they got wickets during the last spell, Hadlee would win IMO. That's not impact, it's padding.

Another telling stat is how both men strike in one-dayers. If Hadlee only got 10 overs (12 at one time) to get wickets, and he's a marathon bowler who gets wickets as he goes, then his strike-rate would be worse. Which it is.

Hadlee was handy with the bat... definitely more of a bowling all-rounder though. And while he made handy runs, he made two centuries and 15 fifties... I don't think he won many matches with his bat.H eonly made two centuries, one against a green Sri Lankan side... as many 50s as he made, if he never made a century, he'd never be considered an all-rounder.

And if you find my posts long and boring - don't read them. I don't mean that in a snide manner either.

 

[Slifer]

U cant have it both ways. U critique Marshall on the basis that he had help with the ball which would account for his superior strike rate, average and economy to Lillee. In the same token u critique Hadlee for not having enough competition when in fact he also has a better average, SR, and economy than Lillee. Plus both men took wickets all over the world; the same cannot b said of Lillee. And whats this about how many wickets they got in a 15 over period? u really must be desperate. U know y most persons (incl. u) consider SRT to be superior to BCL its mostly stats. where SRT has been more consistent home/away against the best over the similar time period.
Like wise if u look at the careers of Lillee vs hadlee, marshall his has more holes in it overall.
PS i welcome other opinions on this issue do most of u guys (like the so-called experts) consider Lillee to be the best fast bowler of all time?

 

[Jono]

I have to agree with Slifer in terms of your contradiction Francis. You're criticising Marshall for having great bowlers to aid him, yet also criticising Hadlee for having no competition for wickets because he didn't have great bowlers around him. Yet apparently Lillee had the right mix or something? Doesn't work.

In my personal opinion Marshall is the greatest fast bowler of all time, with Hadlee second. I haven't read enough of Sydney Barnes to comment on him, and he was obviously great for his time so I sort of 'discard' him when choosing my best. Lillee however is up there as one of the best and is an all-time great, and I sometimes feel he's treated a little harshly by some on this board, whilst overrated by others. I rank McGrath as the better fast bowler out of the two anyway.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Francis obviously isn't criticising any of them, and is merely trying to state both sides of the case for you so that you might be able to see where the selectors came from in their decisions.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's amazing how one person's interpretation becomes another person's criticism, dependent upon whether ones viewpoint is juxtaposed or not.

(That's not a criticism - just my interpretation).

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

It's amazing how one person's interpretation becomes another person's criticism, dependent upon whether ones viewpoint is juxtaposed or not.

(That's not a criticism - just my interpretation).

You know, sometimes it takes 2 or 3 times over to fully get what you mean.

 

[luckyeddie]

You know, sometimes it takes 2 or 3 times over to fully get what you mean.

At least you get there more often than not.

Buy a book of short stories by the greatest science fiction writer who ever lived. It's called "Asimov's Mysteries", read it well and pay particular attention to a reference in one story to Christopher Clavius's 'given' name.

It says more about my mental processes than anything I would ever otherwise choose to put into words.

 

[Francis]

No I didn't contradict myself and I'll explain why. Malcolm Marshall was a striker - he put in bouncers, half pitched deliveries etc. Marshall bowled deliveries that looked for wickets moreso than Hadlee. The main times Hadlee bowled bouncers were at the end of overs to get a maiden. Hadlee's stuff just wasn't touched... it wasn't touched because he bowled good line and length.

Now Marshall's stuff could have be left alone if he didn't have great bowlers at the other end. Players were forced to play off him because of great bowling - so they wouldn't have played him as much. Meaning his strike-rate would go up. However, he still would have enticed stroke-making - probably leading to more runs being scored off him. It's similar with Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath (in Tests) these days. Guys see Lee are seen as easier to score off and poor Lee has a horrific test bowling record without McGrathl. McGrath's stuff isn't touched much while they'll go after Lee. Hadlee didn't intice stroke making as much as Marshall, so he wouldn't have fed off bowlers as easily. There's no great feeding off bowlers when your bowling line and length because players are less likely to go after you.

So I didn't contradict myself because both were different bowlers. One was a consistent marathon bowler, another a genuine striker. It's simple - strikers have a better chance at getting wickets when they're forcing batsman to hit the ball. That's what the West Indian quartet did for each other. Economical bowlers often don't intice stroke-making as easily and get wickets easier if they have time to bowl for wickets. Look at Glenn McGrath, the closest thing to Hadlee after Hadlee, he doesn't always strike well in ODI despite having the greatest strike-bowler in ODI history (statisticly) in Brett Lee bowling. And it's not his so-called poor form. McGrath was bowling the best I'd ever seen him bowl from Perth 2004 to Lords 2005 and yet Lee got more ODI wickets in that period. McGrath and Lee are the perfect example of what I'm saying. Lee feeds off McGrath, but McGrath hardly feeds off Lee. Hadlee is hardly the type of bowler that feeds off people. He doesn't intice batsman to hit shots as much as Marshall.

SIDE NOTE: In fact, I made a comparison between McGrath's best peak and Hadlee's best peak here: http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=16641
So not only don't I consider Haldee the best bowler ever, but I think McGrath had a better peak even though I don't think McGrath was greater.

Dennis Lillee was a lovely combination of both. He was capable of long spells where he took wickets, but was renound for game-breaking sessions where he'd win games. He made batsman got after his stuff more than Hadlee and thus didn't need long spells to bring his strike-rate down. While he didn't have the presure at the other end to strike as much as he'd like, he also had the ability of economy to not spray runs while getting wickets. As a matter of fact, Lillee was the perfect fast bowler to carry a bowling attacl because he didn't require the longest spells most of the time, and didn't require great bowlers at the other end which his 1981 season shows. Lillee was carrying the attack in 1981, yet unlike guys like Murali and Hadlee, whilst carrying the attack he striked at 45 (Murali never did that in 2000 or 2001), and kept a good economy. Like I said, the perfect guy for carrying a bowling attack because he wasn't too economical to not strike wickets often, yet was economical enough to help his team out and keep runs down.

That and Sir Richard Hadlee himself says Dennis Lillee was the greatest fast bowler of all time. I can't imagine Warne or Murali saying that about each other.

 

[Slifer]

The analyses that u make of Lillee when comparing him to both Marshall/Hadlee are not based on ne facts and have nothing to do with what the numbers say. As for Hadlee's esteem for Lillee, Lillee himself considers Mcgrath to be the best seamer of all time (which i wouldnt argue against). In fact if i had to choose the best seamer of all time it would be one of Hadlee, Mcgrath or Marshall. Say what u want about these 3 but the numbers say that all three were economical, had very low SR, low averages and a comparatively high Wicket per match ratio. All 3 did this while performing all over the world.

If Lillee was so great where r his performances when conditions were against him. Imagine if Marshall played all/most of his tests in the WI, ENg and Aust what do u think his average would be? Lillee played the vast majority of his matches where conditons were more favorable to fast bowling yet still the numbers (and those of us w/o hero worship) say that he falls well short of the standards of MM and RH. And y pick out a particular season to prove a point. Do u think his performance in 1981 might have to do with the fact that he played in 3 countries which are very conduscive to seam bowling (NZl, Aust. and ENG). Lara scored more hundreds and averaged higher than SRT this year but overall SRT has proven to be more reliable/consistent in more varied conditions which is y most of us consider him to be better than BCL.

 

[luckyeddie]

The analyses that u make of Lillee when comparing him to both Marshall/Hadlee are based mostly on facts and have nothing to do with what the numbers say.

Good stuff.

Never, EVER let facts get in the way of a good argument.

 

[Slifer]

WHoops my mistake!! typo

 

[Francis]

The analyses that u make of Lillee when comparing him to both Marshall/Hadlee are based mostly on facts and have nothing to do with what the numbers say.

I take that as a complement because stats can be misleading. They don't show how many wickets came from tailenders or how quick a flurry of wickets came. Did the flurry come in the first session which would be best, or later on? Stats are just a ratio, nothing more. Granted if a seamer has a strike-rate of 60 and another 50... then stats become telling. But when Hadlee strikes about two balls better and two runs cheaper... it's nothing. Hadlee could have 5-110, all top order batsman. Lillee could have 5-100, all top order batsman - then Hadlee could take a tailender and his stats would look a lot better. And those facts have everything to do with stats. They're an indication of how those stats came into fruition.

There's many ways to read stats. So many ways that stats can't be trusted when there're so close and there's so many variables.

As for Hadlee's esteem for Lillee, Lillee himself considers Mcgrath to be the best seamer of all time (which i wouldnt argue against). In fact if i had to choose the best seamer of all time it would be one of Hadlee, Mcgrath or Marshall. Say what u want about these 3 but the numbers say that all three were economical, had very low SR, low averages and a comparatively high Wicket per match ratio. All 3 did this while performing all over the world.

All are in my six best bowlers of all time list. There's actually not a whole lot I can add to this other than saying again this is just based on stats. Like you said, I used facts. I was under the impression that facts, which are certain, are more solid than what can be skewering stats and like I said. Strikers work better when batters are going after them. Marathon bowlers work better when they have plenty of time and overs to work with.

If Lillee was so great where r his performances when conditions were against him.

Well aside from one tour of Pakistan - just three tests out of 70, I haven't heard of any period where Lillee had problems with conditions. He never played India in India so we don't know how well he did. Lillee has the one renound reputation as a bowler for being totally complete in his bowling. I feel condifent Lille could do fine in bad conditions... there really isn't sufficiant evidence to suggest he sucked in bad conditions

Imagine if Marshall played all/most of his tests in the WI, ENg and Aust what do u think his average would be?

That means nothing really. What if Murali played all game in Sri Lanka? He has an international average of 27 so of course he'd be good there. What is Warne only bowled in second innings? He'd be great. The West Indies is the best place on earth for pace bowling by far, of course his average would be good. If anything Marshall's aided by playing cricket there so much. I don't understand why you said that, all great bowlers do great in suting conditions. And Marshall in places like India averaged around 24...so he wasn't as good there.

Lillee played the vast majority of his matches where conditons were more favorable to fast bowling yet still the numbers (and those of us w/o hero worship) say that he falls well short of the standards of MM and RH.

This has nothing to do with hero worship at all. I'm saying all who ever saw Lillee in his prime, said he was the best fast bowler ever. Almost like an undisputed fact. Lillee played in good conditions for sure. So did Marshall. The West Indies is the best place for fast bowling on earth. I don't see how Marshall had the advantage here. For all the bad conditions Marshall may have played in, he certainly played in some of the best in the West Indies.

And y pick out a particular season to prove a point. Do u think his performance in 1981 might have to do with the fact that he played in 3 countries which are very conduscive to seam bowling (NZl, Aust. and ENG).

I say 1981 because it was his best season, it was when people started saying he was the best fast bowler ever, it was a year where he striked better than Marshall, it was a year where he had no where near the added help Marshall had, it was a year where he bowled long spells like Hadlee, yet ended up with a superior strike-rate for the year. Really it was the year the summed up every reason why he was greater because anything preventing him for being statisticly superior such as Thompson (who striked better if I recall) were gone.

Again, aside from three tests only, there's no proof Lillee sucked in bad conditions. And it's not like England and Australia don't have bad wickets for seamers such as Old Trafford and the SCG. It's no secret Marshall, renound for wanting to learn new things, took things off Lillee such as Lillee's change of pace on bad wickets. You name any area of bowling and Lillee was renound for perfecting it. There's no reason why he couldn't have worked well on bad wickets. Tendulkar's having a bad period right now, yet nobody would say he sucks against Pakistan. What if Tendulkar was playing his first series against Pakistan this year? He could easily be judged as so-so on bad wickets.

I have never heard of Lillee being bad on unsuiting wickets. In fact one of Lillee's most famous matches was getting 10 wickets during the centenary test which apparently was an absolute shocking wicket for bowling. So in fact Lillee does have a reputation for bowling on bad wickets because that story endured not because of wickets, but because of what he did on a good pitch. Many people praised him for being good on ESPN's Legends of Cricket for being good on bad wickets and again, Australia has bad seam wickets, so does England. The Oval is renound for big batting scores. Neither country comes close to the West Indies for suiting pace wickets.

So if people here, and I haven't been here long, are saying he was bad on unsuiting wickets based off three matches... then they probably didn't see the matches many did when they praised him. Again, Lillee was seen as 'complete' by every single expert who saw him. Not many bowlers used cutters back then, Lillee did.

Lara scored more hundreds and averaged higher than SRT this year but overall SRT has proven to be more reliable/consistent in more varied conditions which is y most of us consider him to be better than BCL.

That's just one isolated case. I'd be willing to be Lara's best year isn't as good as Tendulkar's best year. Or maybe it is. Shane Warne striked at around 42 in 1994, and around 45 in 2005 and had plenty of years where he was brilliant. Yet his "good but not great" years of 1998-2001 took it back up. Warne's figures don't show how impacting he was at his best. Warne may have impacted more games than any bowler ever, but you'd never guess it off stats, but his best years show him as untouchable. That's another isolated case.

I talked about 1981 because he didn't have certain valiables that prevented him from having similar stats to Marshall and Hadlee. He proved that year he could do everything Hadlee did and better because Lillee was Australia's only main great bowler that year. He proved he didn't need Thompson to keep his average down either or strike better. Lillee had plenty of handicaps yet he succeeded extremely well proving he was the best of both worlds - a more effective marathon bowler and a great striker.

Again, I don't understand your stance when you say all I did was state facts. I think most people can accept that stats can tell part of a story, they don't reveal 100% on how good somebody is. Yet I state facts and they hurt my case?

[Edit - sorry I was posting when I you posted above. Also I could have made that shorter by simply stating that the centenary test was one of Lillee's five most famous performances because he took a tenfer on an absolutely terrible bowling wicket. Oh yes, Lillee was a great bowler on bad wickets.]

 

[Slifer]

That was a typo what i meant to say is that u ignored the facts. NE way how does Lillee's performance in this so-called centenary test compare to MM demolition of India in India in 1983 for example. On wickets least conduscive to seamers he took 33 wkts @ 18.81. NE way i think its about time i brought this argument to a close. For u Dennis Lillee is the best seamer of all time for me its a toss up between Marshall, Hadlee, and Mcgrath. One thing i forgot to add is that the main bone of my contention is how can so-called cricket experts rank Lillee higher than Hadlee and Imran who were both at the very least his equal in bowling and by far better batters. So overall they r better cricketers. Care to argue against this point??

Quick question when did complete fast bowler = best. if u ask me for the most complete seamer it would be one of Akram or Waqar. They had every thing Lillee had + swing (conventional and reverse) something Lillee could only dream of.

 

[Francis]

That was a typo what i meant to say is that u ignored the facts.

No stats are facts, there's ratios. The facts I gave explained the ratios. Again, strikers strikes better when batsman are playing shots. Marathon bowlers bowl better when they have time to get wickets. Marshall and Hadlee are very different.

NE way how does Lillee's performance in this so-called centenary test compare to MM demolition of India in India in 1983 for example.

The centenary test match was the most famous test match of the 70s which celebrated 100 years of cricket. Great controversay occured when Lillee wasn't given man of the match because he took 10 wickets on a wicket unsuiting to him, and he did it with change-ups of pace. People were thanking Lillee because all people wanted was an exciting match and it looked heading for a draw. And while you can't compare one test match to an entire series, I don't know if those pitches in India were any worse than the centenary pitch... they might have been better. We can't compare and criticise here because Lillee never played there. But surely he's played on bad pitches in Australia. Malcolm Marshall's great Australian moment was doing great at the SCG when the ball wasn't bouncing above the stumps. So Australia isn't always a seamers paradise.

For u Dennis Lillee is the best seamer of all time for me its a toss up between Marshall, Hadlee, and Mcgrath.

I accept and respect your opinion. I'll just add that I hope people realise that stats are just ratios that don't reflect facts. However, facts can reflect upon ratios. All of what I said it also a reflection of the opinions all cricket experts had on Lillee. Hadlee, Botham, Marshall etc. They all gave their props to Lillee. It's just an undisputed fact for all who saw him, he was the goal-standard.

Quick question when did complete fast bowler = best. if u ask me for the most complete seamer it would be one of Akram or Waqar.

You can name nearly any successful fast bowler since Lillee's retirement and they give credit to him. All of Australia's bowlers since his retirement have had instrcution from him. Marshall asked Lillee for advice during his career. Hadlee did too I believe. Hadlee had 4 things he thought about while running to the crease to bowl. Rhytym, Off Stump, Desire and Lillee. He always thought about what Lillee would do when things weren't going right.
Lillee's a freelance coach now and most countries ask him to come and teach. Teams ask him everything from how to swing the ball, how to reverse, how to cut the ball and remain acurate, how to overcome injury most of all.

Lillee is the benchmark and all try to learn from him. Only Imran Khan and Sarfaz Anwar come close in terms of teaching guys new things. And really they aren't that close. Khan was often asked to teach reverse swing because he knew exactly how it happened.

I'm not neccessarily saying you have to be complete to be the best. Lillee was the best because he could strike with a poor bowling attack behind him and bowl better in marathon spells. There are parts of his career where variables prevented that from being obvious statisticly. It was obvious to all who saw him though and saw how he impacted games.

They had every thing Lillee had + swing (conventional and reverse) something Lillee could only dream of.

Lillee had those things, although nobody swung the ball as much as those guys. Waquar wasn't as complete as Wasim. Try and think of Matthew Hoggard and a poor version of Waquar Yunis. Both pitch the ball up a lot and swing the ball, Waquar did it better and like a genuine striker, wasn't economical because of it, but that's not a knock because he did it the right way. In fact Waquar didn't do much more than swing the ball. He didn't have the pace to intimidate (he was fast early on in his career), like the West Indians did and Lillee and Thompson started that. That's not a knock on him because he was a glorious bowler and it worked. Akram comes close to Lillee. He could almost swing the ball both ways that lad. He had a nasty bouncer because his arm was so fast so he could intimidate with bowling. I wouldn't say he was as good as Lillee at seaming... by that I mean movement off the seam, not seam position in the air. Although Wasim comes close. Hadlee and McGrath could get the ball to kick off a seam better IMO. But Wasim's up there. Lillee had better pace change-up as well. It's certainly not silly to think Wasim was as complete as Lillee though.

Wasim was the most entertaining fast bowler I have ever seen in my life and I'll never forget two dismissals from the 1992 world cup... just unplayable.

Like I said, I respect your opinion though and appreciate what you wrote.

 

[Slifer]

likewise

 

[Slifer]

If i were to rank the greatest seamers it would be:

Hadlee/Marshall/Mcgrath
Wasim
Ambrose
Donald/Lillee
Waqar
Imran
Garner
Holding etc etc etc.

Whats urs by the way??

 

[marc71178]

Eddie, I watched the shows and like I said, some of the explanations they gave were very funny. BTW, how could they rate Sachin as the alltime no.7 when he was still only 25 years old? I guess the fact that Sachin had a ESPN exclusive contract played no part in it at all. I watched the shows and I am telling you it was biased. IT was worser than when the ICC had one guy from each test playing nation pick an all time world XI. I watched that show too and that one seemed to be a more cricketing selection than this one.

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.

 

[Francis]

If i were to rank the greatest seamers it would be:

Hadlee/Marshall/Mcgrath
Wasim
Ambrose
Donald/Lillee
Waqar
Imran
Garner
Holding etc etc etc.

Whats urs by the way??

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.

 

[Jono]

Francis, by seamer I'm sure he meant 'fast bowler' in general. Not as a seam bowler by the strictest definition.

Anyway, as a fast bowler overall, surely you have to put into context the fact that McGrath has been bowling in an era where the pitches have been at its flattest, more players are scoring runs quicker and averaging more, yet he still cleans up teams almost with ease. Whilst every other fast bowler in the world has taken a pummelling, and even other champions like Pollock haven't been as good as they were in the past due to a number of reasons, McGrath has still always dominated.

As far as I'm concerned, when every other fast bowler is struggling, yet one man seems to be so damn great, this must be put into context and taken into consideration when deciding whether he is better than greats of the past. Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Hadlee etc. were all brilliant, but there is no doubt they received better bowling conditions more often compared to Glenn McGrath. I don't particularly like him and the way he acts on the field sometimes, but he's an absolute champion and any comparison to the greats of the 70s and 80s can be made IMO.

The fact that on stats alone he's close to and sometimes better than those greats, yet he's faced far more adverse conditions and been successful all over the world suggests something.