Pick TWO opening Bowlers for the 1966-85 World test XI

[Fratboy]

Yeah he must be as he took over the record of most test wkts in 1981 and held it until 1985 (which happens to also be within the period here) and he still holds the record for the most wkts after "x" tests for numbers 44 to 64 Tests.

Not to mention his legendary performances during the 1971-72 World XI and 1977-79 WSC games.....

I refuse to rate him for the same reason why Asian batsmen aren't really rated until they show they can score outside the sub-continent.

 

[Gajanayake]

Marshall and Hadlee for mine.

 

[aussie tragic]

Excluding the Allrounder nominees (Botham, Imran & Dev who all ave > 30), here are some batting stats for the Pace bowlers during the 1966-85 period:

Croft ------ 158 @ 10.53
Garner ------ 609 runs @ 12.95
Hadlee ------ 2199 runs @ 24.98
Holding ------ 786 runs @ 12.88
Lawson ------ 743 runs @ 15.16
Lillee ------ 905 runs @ 13.71
Marshall ------ 800 runs @ 17.77
Roberts ------- 762 runs @ 14.94
Snow ------ 767 runs @ 13.94
Taylor ------ 563 runs @ 17.59
Thomson ------ 679 runs @ 12.81
Willis ------ 840 runs @ 11.50

 

[silentstriker]

No way Lillee should win this.

Marshall as one, and the second should be between Garner, Khan, Hadlee. All of whom were better bowlers than Lillee IMO. I would go on Marshall and Garner if I had to pick bowling alone, but I feel its close enough for Khan's batting to come into play, so he'd be valuble there.

But really, I could be convinced to vote for Hadlee or Garner just as easily.

Not Lillee though, he was an excellent pace bowler, but not at the quality of the others in this poll.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO there are certain conditions a bowler has to pass for him to reach all time status. One, he should be able to dismantle entire lineups. Two, he should be consistent. Three, he should perform against the best batting lineups. And four, he should perform on the subcontinent (if it is applicable, bowlers after 1960).

You can be a fantastic bowler if you don't have all four, but I am not sure if you can be an all timer.

1. Garner Averages 19.20 in Asia (3 tests).
2. Marshall Averages 23.05 in Asia (19 tests).
3. Hadlee Averages 21.58 in Asia (13 tests).
4. Khan Averages 18 in SL, 28 in India (Pak discounted as it is home)
5. Lillee Averages 68.33 in Asia (4 tests)

Now, I ask you, seriously, which does not belong?

 

[aussie tragic]

IMO there are certain conditions a bowler has to pass for him to reach all time status. One, he should be able to dismantle entire lineups. Two, he should be consistent. Three, he should perform against the best batting lineups. And four, he should perform on the subcontinent (if it is applicable, bowlers after 1960).

You can be a fantastic bowler if you don't have all four, but I am not sure if you can be an all timer.

1. Garner Averages 19.20 in Asia (3 tests).
2. Marshall Averages 23.05 in Asia (19 tests).
3. Hadlee Averages 21.58 in Asia (13 tests).
4. Khan Averages 20.28 in Asia (51 tests, but it was his home)
5. Lillee Averages 68.33 in Asia (4 tests)

Now, I ask you, seriously, which does not belong?

Imran because he had the home ground advantage

 

[silentstriker]

Imran because he had the home ground advantage

Yea, I removed his stats from Pakistan and focused on SL and India.

 

[silentstriker]

Lillee was a good bowler, but I feel is he extremely overrated, especially when you start putting out the word 'all-time'.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Lillee was a good bowler, but I feel is he extremely overrated, especially when you start putting out the word 'all-time'.

Would have been the greatest fast bowler ever had it not been for his first back injury, as it was he's left in the pack with others. I always thought Michael Holding had the best action but he never even played against Pakistan at all, never mind in their own Country.
I would have either Botham or Imran at Number 6, not necessarily as an opening bowler.

 

[adharcric]

Would have been the greatest fast bowler ever had it not been for his first back injury, as it was he's left in the pack with others. I always thought Michael Holding had the best action but he never even played against Pakistan at all, never mind in their own Country.
I would have either Botham or Imran at Number 6, not necessarily as an opening bowler.

Well he did have his injury so that doesn't matter. Ian Bishop may have been a great bowler if he didn't have his injury - that doesn't make him a great bowler. Lillee is an all-time great, but he's definitely below Marshall and just about in the Garner-Hadlee-Imran class. Looking at their overall records, I'd take Garner over Lillee and Hadlee as well perhaps, but it is very close.

 

[Slifer]

IMO there are certain conditions a bowler has to pass for him to reach all time status. One, he should be able to dismantle entire lineups. Two, he should be consistent. Three, he should perform against the best batting lineups. And four, he should perform on the subcontinent (if it is applicable, bowlers after 1960).

You can be a fantastic bowler if you don't have all four, but I am not sure if you can be an all timer.

1. Garner Averages 19.20 in Asia (3 tests).
2. Marshall Averages 23.05 in Asia (19 tests).
3. Hadlee Averages 21.58 in Asia (13 tests).
4. Khan Averages 18 in SL, 28 in India (Pak discounted as it is home)
5. Lillee Averages 68.33 in Asia (4 tests)

Now, I ask you, seriously, which does not belong?

SS the more i read your posts the more appreciative Ive become of your sound cricketing knowledge. Thanks for pointing out what Ive always thought; Lillee is a completely overated bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm liking a potential Marshall-Hadlee opening bowling combination. I'd say Marshall is the best out of all these bowlers, and whereas Hadlee may not be the second best of these bowlers, his added value with the bat more than makes up for it. We could have some extremely deep batting, if Hadlee comes in at 9 and Marshall at 10.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What's with all the Lillee bashing? He might not be as good as Marshall, Garner, Holding and Hadlee, but you lot are making it sound as though he is about the same standard as Rikki Clarke.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well he did have his injury so that doesn't matter. Ian Bishop may have been a great bowler if he didn't have his injury - that doesn't make him a great bowler. Lillee is an all-time great, but he's definitely below Marshall and just about in the Garner-Hadlee-Imran class. Looking at their overall records, I'd take Garner over Lillee and Hadlee as well perhaps, but it is very close.

I didn't say it mattered, only that he would have been considered the best by more people but for his injury - I still rate him the best anyway.

It would interesting to see how often Garner actually took the new ball.

 

[silentstriker]

What's with all the Lillee bashing? He might not be as good as Marshall, Garner, Holding and Hadlee, but you lot are making it sound as though he is about the same standard as Rikki Clarke.

Um, I've repeatedly said that he was an excellent bowler. He was world class. But he is not an all time bowler. Quite different from comparing him to Ricki Clarcke.

If Lillee were playing today, he'd be the best pace bowler around (after McGrath). That doesn't make him an all timer though.

 

[silentstriker]

Would have been the greatest fast bowler ever had it not been for his first back injury, as it was he's left in the pack with others.

But he did, so its impossible to know. He might have been, or might not. We can only judge based on what happened. Vinod Kambli might have been a great batsman had it not been for his temper...but he did have a temper, and we'll never know.

 

[JBH001]

What's with all the Lillee bashing?

Seconded - talk about time fading a bowler.
IMO Lillee is better than any of the bowlers on that list, with the exception of perhaps Marshall and Hadlee who are his equals, further Hadlee would really only count as an equal towards the middle portion and the end of that era.
The rest are a level below.

As for subcontinental records - he only played one full series in that part of the world, and though he did not well, everyone is allowed to have a bad series, or find it difficult acclimatising to conditions with resultant effect on performance, especially a place like Pakistan which is notoriously difficult to tour, especially for first timers.
Therefore we fall back on this other statistics and on the words and opinions of those who played with him and those who played against him. As far as I know, unanimously in that period, Lillee was rated the best bowler along with Marshall - I think that should counteract ridiculously one-sided and biased comments (for example from SS who seems to be prone to it) that only rely on a small sample.

Some of you really need to get a grip.

 

[silentstriker]

Well you can say that my comments are biased, but so far I've only said facts. You can disagree with my criteria - but thats a bit far from being biased.

By the way, Garner also played one series in Pakistan (a place notoriously difficult to tour) and averaged 19.

In any case, to say that Garner is a "level below" Lillee is just a ludicrous statement. By what reasoning do you say that?

 

[Slifer]

U know come to think of it, it seems to me that indeed Garner is a bit underated. Even among West Indians when we talk of our best fast bowler more often than not Marshall, Holding and Ambrose are placed above him. For my money only Marshall of the 3 is clearly above him. As far as alltime is concerned only: Marshall, Hadlee, and Mcgrath I would rank clearly above him. But what a phenomenal bowler that "Big-Bird" was

 

[PhoenixFire]

Garner is the best List - A fast bowler of all time, in my opinion.