Well the difference there is while Lillee only played 4 unsuccessful Tests in the Sub-Continent, Hadlee overall was immensely successful there and you could argue that Lillee was a far more experienced veteran than Hadlee on their respective dire Pakistani tours.
Yeah a bad series which he never made up for. It's a shame he didn't play there more often IMO.
Outside of this board I've rarely seen Marshall put on the same pedestal as Lillee. Hadlee has also been a cut below - even by his own admission.
Indeed it is.
Malcolm Marshall? Richard held a poll fairly recently and IIRC the majority of people thought him either the greatest bowler of all time or the second-best after SF Barnes.
Precisely why I said "outside of this board".
macko's record is pretty much flawless. even his 9 wickets in NZ at 32 dont look as horrible as lillee's record in pakistan or ambrose's against india. in fact, in one of those three matches in nz he did produce a match winning bowling performance (6-114). and of course, he had great numbers against every country.
Hmm i don't think that's relevant whatsoever. When I pick a team I tend to go for the batsman who i think is most likely to score runs and the bowler who is most likely to take wickets. You can certainly argue that Lillee would be more likely to take wickets, if you're so inclined, but you can't argue that Marshall should be second to Lillee because he managed to maintain better fitness for the majority of his career.
I don't think it's great no, but those 3 tests there really depreciate his overall record. IIRC, his average other than those tests is 23 and SR is 50 which stands out even more than what his overall record ended up being.
tbh... Lillee only had one tour of Pakistan and Ambit only had one tour of India, IIRC.. That really should not be held against them.
Sorry, how do you know Marshall would have maintained the same fitness if he had to carry the Windies as Lillee happened to do for Australia towards the 2nd half of his career? People get injuries, sometimes because they don't take care of themselves and sometimes because of genetics. For me, the character and the skill it takes to come back, reinvent yourself and still be one of the best bowlers of all time is immeasurable.
The thing is, you can pick around with Lillee's record, taking out those occasional poor tests and make his record as good as Marshall's. And that's fair enough. But with Marshall, his record is already that good, even with a few poor performances, the occasional bad run of form, a game where he wasn't 100% fit. Even with all of the occupational hazards a fast bowler has to face, he still managed to iron them out impossibly good figures.
Lillee's 15 WSC "Tests" yielded 79 wickets at 23.91 - almost identical to his official Test average. However his strike rate in those matches was just 46 - considerably better than his official Test career strike rate of 52.
You extoll the merits of Lillee so well, but that's the easy part of the argument when comparing two of the world's best-ever bowlers! You're questioning the ability in tough conditions of a man who once took 7/53 with his left hand in a cast. Marshall played 80-odd test matches. Do you really think noone ever got after him? Were there no times when the rest of the attack was bowling poorly and he had to carry them? When he had to bowl long spells in hot conditions, deal with home-town umpires or battle with world-class batsmen? Yet he just kept on taking wickets. You say his story is less heroic- there's no glorious comeback after injury and no absent three years at his peak- but if there's something boring about someone who takes wicket after wicket after wicket for his entire career then I shall take the boring bowler every time.
I wouldn't. I actually wouldn't have much of a problem if all of those were the other way round. I'd disagree heavily about Warne and Miller though, obviously
.
