Ian Botham vs Dennis Lillee

[akilana]

Woah. This post has many fascinating insights and new information that it encourages me to change my mind.

read one of subs post and you'll change your mind back.. they're fascinating.

 

[subshakerz]

he'll overlook this post and ask you again to make the same post..

I've addressed it already in another thread but it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[subshakerz]

read one of subs post and you'll change your mind back.. they're fascinating.

I at least address actual arguments.

 

[kyear2]

This is hilarious levels of desperation to make your argument. Kudos.

It's a jackass that makes a point, states two outlier examples to support same then responds with criticism when I provide evidence to the contrary.

It's not desperation, you made a point and I responded. What did you expect "no it wasn't"?

 

[kyear2]

I definitely pick Marshall in my all time XI, but I think it's fair to say that the idea of him being a consensus "locked-in" pick for such a team has become more and more prevalent in recent decades.

At or around the turn of the century, give or take, I saw all time XIs selected by Peter Baxter, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Henry Blofeld, Bill Frindall, Jonathan Agnew, Don Bradman, Richie Benaud and Ashley Mallett, and Marshall didn't make any of them.

TMS chose their 40th anniversary team for 1957-1997 and Marshall didn't make that team either.

And if the all time rankings of John Woodcock and Nick Brownlee around that time were converted into all time XIs then Marshall misses both those teams too, and by a long way.

To repeat, I disagree with all of these, but the idea that Marshall is a near-universal lock in an all time XI certainly wasn't the case until relatively recently.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a jackass that makes a point, states two outlier examples to support same then responds with criticism when I provide evidence to the contrary.

It's not desperation, you made a point and I responded. What did you expect "no it wasn't"?

Those were two among others which I gave. As Sean mentioned, plenty of others.

 

[kyear2]

I definitely pick Marshall in my all time XI, but I think it's fair to say that the idea of him being a consensus "locked-in" pick for such a team has become more and more prevalent in recent decades.

At or around the turn of the century, give or take, I saw all time XIs selected by Peter Baxter, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Henry Blofeld, Bill Frindall, Jonathan Agnew, Don Bradman, Richie Benaud and Ashley Mallett, and Marshall didn't make any of them.

TMS chose their 40th anniversary team for 1957-1997 and Marshall didn't make that team either.

And if the all time rankings of John Woodcock and Nick Brownlee around that time were converted into all time XIs then Marshall misses both those teams too, and by a long way.

To repeat, I disagree with all of these, but the idea that Marshall is a near-universal lock in an all time XI certainly wasn't the case until relatively recently.

So I want to look at this from several perspectives....

First up you referenced "locked in", even as I illustrated in the post. I have Bradman and Sobers by themselves.
Then Marshall, Hobbs and Tendulkar, a gap then Warne and Gilly.

What does Bradman and Sobers have? Well the numbers, an unchallenged label as best as what they did and a legacy.

Marshall, Hobbs and Tendulkar, have the numbers, and are unchallenged as among the 3 or so best to have ever done it, and they all have the peer rating. All they lack is the legacy of the first two, though Hobbs is pretty close. But why don't they, because they haven't been retired long enough?

I also look at it from this perspective. If you are selecting same side for a WT championship, Sobers and Bradman are either off the table or already selected, who's next?

In any event I went though the names and teams you provided. Woodcock and TMS I'm familiar with.

I could find nothing for Peter Baxter and Gemini said there's no evidence that he made one.

I've read CMJ's rankings and Marshall is no. 11 and the 2nd fast bowler I believe.

Henry Blofeld, his team was interesting.
Bradman | Hobbs | Sobers | Richards | Lloyd | Botham | Knott | Warne | Trueman | Spofforth | Laker

Again I can't find anything for Bill Frindall,.or Jonathan Agnew neither could the AI. Not saying they didn't, just couldn't find anything. Was probably rolled into the TMS effort.

Bradman, ahh the one that opens with Barry and an attack of Lindwall, Lillee, Grimmett, Warne and Bedser. But again, he opens with Barry so I'll allow it.

Ashley Mallet also named a test XI, and from what I've seen Marshall does make it. Along with Lillee, Warne and Grimmett.

Benaud openly said his team wasn't the best and his views of the WI attack were well known and hypocritical as hell.

Now I'm not saying that Marshall has appeared in every team since he retired, but more than not and often the credible ones.

Even Swanton in '91 named him to his all time XI, so it wasn't purely just at the turn of the century.

So even if Bradman and Sobers alone holds a place in the highest of pantheons in this (and all) regard, theses nothing wrong with having Marshall, Hobbs and Tendulkar right behind. Warne and Gilly as well deserving mention.

For my personal views, of the 7 or 8 guys even in this conversation, if I'm only getting 2 picks, I know who they are, probably the same for everyone, if it's only 3, I know who I'm selecting if we're picking a team to save a planet.

So yeah, these guys are locks for me. Prescedence, numbers, impact, peer rep, and guys who have claim to the title as best.

Everyone is free to disagree.

 

[kyear2]

Also, I don't think you can discount an XI you disagree with by saying "but that was just the team HE wanted" because you can say something similar about pretty much everyone's team.

I'm literally quoting what one man said when asked about certain exclusions, from even his short list. And he repeated it several times there after.

Who else has said, this isn't the best team, it's the one I would want to lead?

 

[kyear2]

Yup agree. Marshall has only gained steam recently but for an entire earlier generation, of which some of the names he mentioned are part of, Marshall was not a lock.

You're free to name the ones you would place ahead of him for a space.

 

[kyear2]

And especially problematic when you use other ATG XIs as a source of authority.

That's literally what you did.

You do see that right? Or do you.lack even the slightest amount of self awareness
?

 

[Coronis]

That's literally what you did.

You do see that right? Or do you.lack even the slightest amount of self awareness
?

Am I the only one?

 

[kyear2]

I think WI weren't always very popular with journalists from abroad (especially English) because they were salty that their national teams couldn't match the WI pace attacks and bumpers are quite easy to get annoyed about when your side is on the receiving end. While statsguru can sometimes be misleading, Marshall's record is literally perfect.

It is well known by anyone here of age that the WI team wasn't viewed in the same way that it's projected by the media and the establishment today.

The bowlers were loathed, and the articles didn't even just border on racism. Benaud was chief among them and often shared his views, subtly and often not so much, on our bowling methods.

It was particularly hilarious because it was copied from the Aussie playbook. But it was ok when Lillee and Thompson were doinfing in and the crowds were chanting kill, kill, kill.

But they changed the rules, not just the bouncers and the over rates. They didn't allow as many to play in county cricket, they even changed the way the West Indians were allowed to buy tickets and what they were allowed to take into the stands.

But thank you.

 

[kyear2]

How does that square with Viv and Roberts very high reps in the 70s and early 80s?

Viv was a batsman, and ab exceptional draw for the WI and Glamorgan, Roberts as good as he was, was part of the team before it became the all conquering juggernaught that it became. He also wasn't a challenge to Lillee and the like.

You know, if you just read up on the history of instead of, what ever it is that you do, this wouldn't be a mystery. And I've posted videos about this already...

The good thing though, is that the animosity never really reached down to the players. That was a major positive.

 

[kyear2]

I rate Lillee higher but I am keen on both

Lillee, Imran, Holding, Donald all around the same area for me, brilliant but....

 

[kyear2]

Always got the impression WI were mostly celebrated in the Western press except for certain cases.

They were not.

 

[kyear2]

It's actually sad with Kyear at this point.

Sad that I posted something that disproved your point?

Get over yourself.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think that accounts for Marshalls low rep. I think it's what was mentioned before, he was one of a pack at a time when pace greatness was common especially in WI.

What low rep?

By players of the era he was recognized as the best bowler in the world from '83 till the end of the decade.

As usual you're making **** up.

 

[kyear2]

who was helped the most and damaged the most by Statsguru I wonder? I'd go Barrington for the one who benefited the most, and Trueman is the one who was damaged the most.

Lillee and Akram were hurt the most.

 

[kyear2]

Hmmmm.....I've already said **** you to Viv, might as well say it to Imran.

His peer and overall rating as a bowler was never that high, his rating as an all rounder was high, captain as well. Bowler not so much, but the stories were already out there and everyone knew.

 

[Johan]

Lillee and Akram were hurt the most.

Harold Larwood arguably, until the 1970s he was seen as superior to Trueman in almost every circle, Trueman's psyche was messed up by the fact he was always unfavourably compared to Larwood. Lindwall also rated Larwood as the best fast bowler ever, ahead of himself, Miller and Trueman, Benaud picked Larwood ahead of both Lindwall and Trueman. Now, he's seen as a Craig McDermott opponent.