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

[JBH001]

In regard to the topic itself - I am going to pick Marshall and Lillee to open because I want 2 out and out quick bowlers to open for this XI. IMO Hadlee, though exceptional, is a shade too slow to be picked as an opening bowler in this team - this era had some great genuinely fast bowlers, I want to use them and to 'see' batman jump and hop around.

If Hadlee is not picked, I will gladly pick him as the 3rd seamer and would see him as ideal in this role backing up the 2 express quicks.

 

[Matt79]

^
what he said!

 

[PhoenixFire]

In regard to the topic itself - I am going to pick Marshall and Lillee to open because I want 2 out and out quick bowlers to open for this XI. IMO Hadlee, though exceptional, is a shade too slow to be picked as an opening bowler in this team - this era had some great genuinely fast bowlers, I want to use them and to 'see' batman jump and hop around..

I'm gonna be honest and say that's a load of rubbish. People like Glenn McGrath, has bowled as an opening bowler, against some of the strongest batting line-ups, on dead flat wickets, and has still got over 500 test wickets. The same goes for Hadlee.

 

[JBH001]

As I said in my post - perhaps you have trouble reading? - I want to use quicks and I want to see opening batsman on the skip. It is a merely personal judgement. As I said in my earlier post, this is btw where reading and comprehension skill comes in, I rank Hadlee as (more or less) the equal of Marshall and Lillee, and McGrath as superior to Lillee.

It is a mere personal preference for seeing 2 really quick opening bowlers attacking the batsman.
Therefore, my selection of Marshall and Lillee to open the bowling.

 

[Fratboy]

What really tickles me is the fact that Lillee, the incomplete bowler who has no credentials on the sub continent is/was head honcho of the MRF Pace Academy in Chennai.

 

[aussie tragic]

Haha so true. Basically it comes down to this:

If you're arguing Murali > Warne, or Lillee > Marshall/Garner/Holding etc., less back-up hurts the bowler.

If you're arguing Warne > Murali, or Marshall/Garner/Holding etc., greater back-up hurts the bowler.

It all depends on what your argument is, and how you want to use the facts. Its all BS really.

Just like Lillee's been called a "green top bully" and yet Hayden and Ponting were classified "flat track bullies". So which is it, does Australia have green tops or Flat tracks

 

[grecian]

Oh, ffs, Garner not a destructive bowler

He was a perfect opening bowler, he may not of taking as many five-fers, but better average, better subcontinenal performances, impossible to score runs from. A perfect foil for the others, so they could bowl with freedom. The fact that Holding, Roberts, Croft took all those hauls was partly because of the unerring accuracy from the other end.

One of the best yorkers ever too.

 

[aussie tragic]

Best "10-for" ratios for the leading vote getters during 1966-85:

=(1) Lillee: every 10 tests ----- (7 in 70 tests)
=(1) Hadlee: every 10 tests ----- (6 in 60 tests)
(3) Imran: every 13.5 tests ----- (4 in 54 tests)
(4) Marshall: every 20 tests ----- (2 in 40 tests)
(5) Holding: every 27.5 tests ----- (2 in 55 tests)

Note: Garner, Thomson and Willis never took a 10-for in the period.

Best "5-for" ratios for the leading vote getters during 1966-85:

(1) Hadlee: every 2.5 tests ----- (24 in 60 tests)
(2) Lillee: every 3.0 tests ----- (23 in 70 tests)
(3) Marshall: every 3.1 tests ----- (13 in 40 tests)
(4) Imran: every 3.2 tests ----- (17 in 54 tests)
(5) Holding: every 4.2 tests ----- (13 in 55 tests)
(6) Willis: every 5.6 tests ----- (16 in 90 tests)
(7) Thomson: every 6.4 tests ----- (8 in 51 tests)
(8) Garner: every 8.5 tests ----- (6 in 51 tests)

Edit: It is acknowledged that the West Indies ratios are less because they had to share their wkts between 4 world class bowlers in the same team, while Hadlee and Imran were by themselves and Lillee generally only had one other top bowler with him.

 

[silentstriker]

Best "10-for" ratios for the leading vote getters during 1966-85:

=(1) Lillee: every 10 tests
=(1) Hadlee: every 10 tests
(3) Imran: every 13.5 tests
(4) Marshall: every 20 tests
(5) Holding: every 27.5 tests

Note: Garner, Thomson and Willis never took a 10-for in the period.

Best "5-for" ratios for the leading vote getters during 1966-85:

(1) Hadlee: every 2.5 tests
(2) Lillee: every 3.0 tests
(3) Marshall: every 3.1 tests
(4) Imran: every 3.2 tests
(5) Holding: every 4.2 tests
(6) Willis: every 5.6 tests
(7) Thomson: every 6.4 tests
(8) Garner: every 8.5 tests

I wonder how many five-fors Lillee would have taken if he had three other world class pace bowlers bowling with him. Thats just a ridiculous method to compare two bowlers. If Garner couldn't take wickets, then his average wouldn't be so low.

Its the same reason Kapil Dev took 435 and Hadlee took 431. They HAD to take a lot more wickets because there was no one else. That doesn't make Kapil Dev a better bowler than Joel Garner. Averages are a much better method of comparison, albeit not perfect either.

I now wish I had voted for Garner, because Lillee getting 20 votes and Garner getting 5 is ridiculous.

Garner also has an average of 18.84 in ODI.

 

[silentstriker]

Having Marshall and Garner together would give you TWO bowlers who average 20.xx with the ball over their careers. Thats amazing.

 

[aussie tragic]

I wonder how many five-fors Lillee would have taken if he had three other world class pace bowlers bowling with him

Well he did bowl with Thomson, Walker, Gilmour, McKenzie, Hogg, Pascoe, Lawson and Alderman, not greats but certainly alot better bowlers than what bowled with Hadlee who had all the wkts to himself (I can't even think of one bowler that would've made the Australian team).

btw SS, you should know by know that career records and ODI records don't count during this team selection, just the records during the decades in question, so Hadlee has 299 wkts, Lillee 355 wkts & Dev 280 wkts.

 

[silentstriker]

Well he did bowl with Thomson, Walker, Gilmour, McKenzie, Hogg, Pascoe, Lawson and Alderman, not greats but certainly alot better bowlers than what bowled with Hadlee who had all the wkts to himself (I can't even think of one bowler that would've made the Australian team).

btw SS, you should know by know that career records and ODI records don't count during this team selection, just the records during the decades in question, so Hadlee has 299 wkts, Lillee 355 wkts & Dev 280 wkts.

If all four WI bowlers were available, Lillee might have had trouble making the Aussie team too. He probably would have made it, don't get me wrong, but he wouldn't have been the top two.

 

[aussie tragic]

If all four WI bowlers were available, Lillee might have had trouble making the Aussie team too.

I'm sure he would have got in ahead of Roberts and Croft

Actually, you may have hit on a good test to see how this selection is going. According to this poll, the best 4 pace bowlers in the World during 1966-85 were: Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, Imran

Sorry, but if you ever saw the way the WI demolished the opposition in the 80's, I doubt that only one of the WI players would make it. IMO, Marshall and Holding would have been a certainty in a 1980 World XI and Marshall and Garner in 1985.

Too late now, but thanks SS, I'll definitely vote Holding or Garner for the final bowler

 

[silentstriker]

I'm sure he would have got in ahead of Roberts and Croft

Yes, he would have. He wouldn't be the top two though.

 

[aussie tragic]

The final balance of the 1966-85 team, specifically # 5 and the final bowler, is being discussed here:

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=943446&postcount=252

Please vote option 1, 2 or 3 within the next 24 hours. Thanks

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I now wish I had voted for Garner, because Lillee getting 20 votes and Garner getting 5 is ridiculous.

Okay so that would have given Garner 6 votes. Just face the fact that it's a fair reflection of their status.
Probably the people who know that Lillee was a better bowler than Garner are actually old enough to have seen them bowl and not just getting bogged down with averages.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

I am going to pick to sky sports pundits, Ian Botham and Michael holding

 

[grecian]

Okay so that would have given Garner 6 votes. Just face the fact that it's a fair reflection of their status.
Probably the people who know that Lillee was a better bowler than Garner are actually old enough to have seen them bowl and not just getting bogged down with averages.

Umm, I saw them bowl.

I'm sorry if your taking interweb polls as a true basis of someones status, I'd say you were bogged down on something a little more trivial then averages.

Really I would argue with the assumption that most of the voters of Lillee saw him, as there seem to be quite a lot of young australians, for some odd reason.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Umm, I saw them bowl.
I'm sorry if your taking interweb polls as a true basis of someones status, I'd say you were bogged down on something a little more trivial then averages.

Okay you win, people who are voting on this poll and therefore the users of this forum know nothing about cricket. Excellent.

 

[silentstriker]

Okay you win, people who are voting on this poll and therefore the users of this forum know nothing about cricket. Excellent.

Heh, first you claim that people voted because they had seen them both bowl and decided lille was better and when faced with a statement to the contrary, you try to misdirect the conversation by making a sarcastic statement..

Remember, people on this forum also voted VVS 281 as best of all time and Sarfaz Nawas bowling as best of all time.

So, even though a lot of them know a lot about cricket, nationalistic bias often gets in the way of objective cricketing judgement. And that goes for me too, obviously. I accept that sometimes I tend to overrate Indian batsman and bowlers, but none of the people in that poll are Indian, so I feel fairly confident that I am objective. Now you can disagree and say that Lillee is better than Garner, but to say that 20 votes to 6 is somehow an accurate representation of the ability is beyond just disagreement with opinion, its just a ludicrously wrong statement seething with nationalistic bias.