the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[Ikki]

It doesnt affect Murali as much because OZ arnt the acknowledged 'best team' against spin bowling. Lillee accomplished a lot but Imran,Marshall,Hadlee, McGrath,etc. accomplished more.
Its just that simple.

Not the best players of spin okay. The best team in the world? Surely. To not play the best team of your time is a bit of a minus(-) on your resume. So, by your own reasoning, Murali should also lose some fame over it.

 

[C_C]

Not the best players of spin okay. The best team in the world? Surely. To not play the best team of your time is a bit of a minus(-) on your resume. So, by your own reasoning, Murali should also lose some fame over it.

Err the WI were the best batting team for much of the 70s through till late 80s. Especially against pace.
For spinners, the criteria is different - it is performance in India ( ofcourse that might change if another team eclipses India's spin play but so far its unlikely)...Lillee didnt even play more than a solitary test in the West Indies. As such, he played the toughest opposition in conditions that favoured him the maximum.
Whereas Murali has a stellar record against all teams ( some only at home, most both home and away), Lillee doesnt. I never said Murali is perfect but he loses a lot less points than Lillee does in my books.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err the WI were the best batting team for much of the 70s through till late 80s. Especially against pace.
For spinners, the criteria is different - it is performance in India ( ofcourse that might change if another team eclipses India's spin play but so far its unlikely)...Lillee didnt even play more than a solitary test in the West Indies. As such, he played the toughest opposition in conditions that favoured him the maximum.
Whereas Murali has a stellar record against all teams ( some only at home, most both home and away), Lillee doesnt. I never said Murali is perfect but he loses a lot less points than Lillee does in my books.

You're really missing the point here.

You say: Lillee loses points as a bowler because he never played in Pakistan, India etc with any success. Not because Pakistan and India were the best players of pace, because they surely weren't, but because it was the hardest place to bowl pace at the time, and the local batsmen were good in the conditions and played pace decently.

So...

Murali has never played in Australia with any success. Australia aren't the best players of spin, but they're pretty good, and Australia is an extremely difficult place to bowl spin, due to unhelpful pitches, foreign conditions to Sri Lanka, and a very strong Australian team.

Difference?

 

[Sanz]

You're really missing the point here.

You say: Lillee loses points as a bowler because he never played in Pakistan, India etc with any success. Not because Pakistan and India were the best players of pace, because they surely weren't, but because it was the hardest place to bowl pace at the time, and the local batsmen were good in the conditions and played pace decently.

So...

Murali has never played in Australia with any success. Australia aren't the best players of spin, but they're pretty good, and Australia is an extremely difficult place to bowl spin, due to unhelpful pitches, foreign conditions to Sri Lanka, and a very strong Australian team.

Difference?

I wanted to say this for long long time..anyways knowing C_C he will come up with somthing like 'This doesn't apply to Murali and blah blah blah...hence yada yada yada'

 

[C_C]

Oh i am not missing that aspect of it at all.
I said that there are too many holes in Lillee's resume - not just one.

True, Murali hasnt performed well in Australia but conditions in Australia and England are fairly similar in atleast half their grounds. Same goes for most of South African pitches.Pitch nature can be broadly classified in two goups - subcontinental and non subcontinental. Much of it has to do with soil composition and climate- i know yer gonna say that 'pitches in OZ and England are different' but they are in the same group and much closer to each other (akin to Indian and pakistani pitches) than they are to subcontinental pitches.
Murali has performed there. As such, while Lillee's resume is missing the 'performance in subcontinental pitches' factor completely, Murali's is missing only 'performance in Australia'.
Had Lillee done poorly or skipped only one of the 3 subcontinental nations, it would be the same as Murali.

Plus Lillee's record against the best batsmen of his time ( against pace is the relevant factor as he was a pacer) - WI- is not as good as murali's performance against the Indians. Murali's been excellent at home against the Indians- stunning infact, while Lillee wasnt exactly stunning against the WI in home but held his own.

Murali has also had to play numerous times against the best batting team(against spin) in their backyard, something Lillee did for just one solitary test and promptly flopped.

Murali's overall statistic is unheard of for a spin bowler ( even if you take out BD and ZIM) and perhaps matched only by Warne. Lillee's overall test record is eclipsed or matched by several more.
Relatively, it just doesnt add up in Lillee's favour.
Murali at worst has the 'second best spinner ever' under lock and key.
Lillee at worst is outside the top 15 pacers list and at best, in it - but he isnt an automatic lock for the top 2 spots for a pacer.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh i am not missing that aspect of it at all.
I said that there are too many holes in Lillee's resume - not just one.

True, Murali hasnt performed well in Australia but conditions in Australia and England are fairly similar in atleast half their grounds. Same goes for most of South African pitches.Pitch nature can be broadly classified in two goups - subcontinental and non subcontinental. Much of it has to do with soil composition and climate- i know yer gonna say that 'pitches in OZ and England are different' but they are in the same group and much closer to each other (akin to Indian and pakistani pitches) than they are to subcontinental pitches.

How do you explain people like Alderman then? The fact is, pitches in Australia are different from in other countries. Australia is hotter than England, the grounds are bigger, conditions are less bowling friendly, particularly for swing specialists and fingerspinners. Australia is closer to South Africa than England, probably more like the difference between India and Sri Lanka (for example), but still not identical.

Murali has performed there. As such, while Lillee's resume is missing the 'performance in subcontinental pitches' factor completely, Murali's is missing only 'performance in Australia'.
Had Lillee done poorly or skipped only one of the 3 subcontinental nations, it would be the same as Murali.

In other arguments about Warne, I've heard you argue that his success against England is irrelevant because they were poor against spin (and generally not a great team) in the 90s. Taking that into consideration, and the fact that Australia have been comfortably the best in the world during Murali's era, by your standards it would appear to be a massive hole in his resume that he has never had any success in Australia. Now, I think he certainly would have success if he toured here, but the fact is he hasn't, just like Lillee for various reasons including injury, lack of schedualed tours and Packer cricket never really played much in the subcontinent. Alongside India, touring Australia is the biggest challenge in cricket for a spinner who plies his trade on low, slow Sri Lankan dustbowls, and Murali's score in that category is about a 0, at least in test cricket. Certainly quite as significant as Lillee failing to tour India and having a bad series in Pakistan.

Plus Lillee's record against the best batsmen of his time ( against pace is the relevant factor as he was a pacer) - WI- is not as good as murali's performance against the Indians. Murali's been excellent at home against the Indians- stunning infact, while Lillee wasnt exactly stunning against the WI in home but held his own.

Murali has also had to play numerous times against the best batting team(against spin) in their backyard, something Lillee did for just one solitary test and promptly flopped.

This has got to be one of the weirdest elements to this argument. Lillee played 4 series against the West Indies in his career. During the first, the one in the West Indies where he "flopped", he had four stress fractures in his back. Seems like a pretty good excuse for not taking any wickets to me.

After that, he took 27 wickets @ 26 in 1975, 12 wickets @ 30 in 79/80 and 16 wickets @ 19 in 1981/82.

If you take out the stress fracture series, his record against the West Indies is 55 wickets @ 25.35. That's NOT including the World Series where Lillee also played against the West Indies at the height of their power and performed brilliantly. How on earth is that "holding his own"? It's one of the best records for any pacer against the West Indies, certainly nothing that could be used to deride his abilities as a bowler. How the hell that is a hole in Lillee's resume while Murali's 67 wickets @ 32.48 against India is a big gold star on his is completely beyond me.

 

[C_C]

How do you explain people like Alderman then? The fact is, pitches in Australia are different from in other countries. Australia is hotter than England, the grounds are bigger, conditions are less bowling friendly, particularly for swing specialists and fingerspinners. Australia is closer to South Africa than England, probably more like the difference between India and Sri Lanka (for example), but still not identical.

Which is why i said that pitches can be divided into two broad catgories - subcontinental and non subcontinental.
Lillee has zero performance in one of the categories. Murali doesnt.

In other arguments about Warne, I've heard you argue that his success against England is irrelevant because they were poor against spin (and generally not a great team) in the 90s.

England arnt very good against spin-just like Pakistan or India in Lillee's day wernt too hot against pace. But in subcontinental conditions, where the foreign pacers are firmly at a disadvantage and local batsmen firmly in advantage, Lillee's record is zero, while Murali has an excellent record in England, West Indies and South Africa, with a very good record in NZ and only blemish being OZ.
Like i said - the Murali vs Aus argument would be valid if Lillee had 'zero performance' in only one of the subcontinental nations.

This has got to be one of the weirdest elements to this argument. Lillee played 4 series against the West Indies in his career. During the first, the one in the West Indies where he "flopped", he had four stress fractures in his back. Seems like a pretty good excuse for not taking any wickets to me.

After that, he took 27 wickets @ 26 in 1975, 12 wickets @ 30 in 79/80 and 16 wickets @ 19 in 1981/82.

Lillee had four chances to go to the West Indies - he played only 1 solitary test there and flopped. Thats fact. He is missing performance against the top team in their backyard.

And even during the Packer series - Lillee took a lotta wickets but his average was higher than quite a few bowlers.
Murali's performance vs the best team ( India) is better than his nearest rival ( Warne) while Lillee's performance against the west indies is behind that of Imran,Hadlee, Kapil etc.
Its simply a question of case-by-case analysis and applying the relevant criterias for spinners and pacers. Unless you consider spinners to be inherently inferior bowlers than pacers ( since many pacers have under 25 average, hardly a handful of spinners have that) we cannot simply equate a pacer's 26 average to a spinner's 30 average.
For a pacer, 26 average against the top team isnt a good performance. For a spinner, it is a good effort. WI were the best players of pace in their era and OZ of the 90s and 2000s are the best players of pace in theirs. But the WI or the OZ dont twack alltime great pacers for something like 10 wickets @ 45 average routinely. India does with top spinners usually....

 

[Richard]

I have. Doesn't make me as quick as Tyson. And that's notwithstanding that protection was nowhere near as good in those days.

So why did not bowlers of Mark Butcher's pace bruise batsmen through those pads then?
Protection mightn't have been as good overall, but leg-pads have always been pretty thorough protection.

Yeah but as Marc said the difference is just too great. You start reaching the edge of human physiology with the 160km/h barrier, let alone another 35km/h quicker! It's just so unlikely as to render it a myth that Tyson was as quick as some would have you believe.

And would you have said the same about Bradman?
His concentration was beyond - way beyond - normal human thresholds. His eye was unexceptional. His technique was not impeccable. But he played poor strokes infinately more irregularly than most.
I don't know if Tyson's body was ever fully studied - maybe he, like Murali, had some physical abnormality that rendered him superior?

 

[Richard]

LOL. You and C_C must be brothers.

Err - try some of the 50-quote arguments we've had.
I find C_C's ideas on some things ludicrous.
But I do find he hits the nail on the head with the ease that attitude and personality can lead to cricketers being overrated.

 

[Richard]

Lillee had it all - pace, movement, aggression, tenacity, ability to fight through pain.

On top of that, he redefined a paceman's art by adding guile when his speed diminished.

He is easily one of the top 6 or so quicks of all time and many of the greats that followed learnt from him.

Marshall was equally as good in that he possessed all of the same qualities.

Unlike Lillee, who resorted to cutters when his pace had dropped, Marshall learnt hot to swing the ball.

Err - I find it totally impossible to conceive that they "learnt" the things just because they weren't as quick as they once were.
I find it much more likely that they were always skilled at them and the ability to bowl them simply became more obvious once their pace got a bit slower.
Marshall and Lillee were great swing-bowlers from the times they picked-up cricket-balls. Neither ever relied on speed primarily - otherwise they'd only have been average like the Thomson, Patterson, etc. class.

 

[Richard]

1. Really?, from what i've heard Imran was never faster than either Marshall or Holding but he was quick.

Whatever you've heard, no-one really knew.
There were no speed-guns in the days of Imran and Marshall.

 

[C_C]

His concentration was beyond - way beyond - normal human thresholds. His eye was unexceptional. His technique was not impeccable. But he played poor strokes infinately more irregularly than most.

I disgree with your equating Bradman with someone bowling at 120mph.
That would be the equivalent of batting half way down the pitch and still getting centuries.
Braddles was overall the best product - there wasnt a single skill where he was 'light year' ahead of the rest really- just 'noticably better' in almost all the respective skills....its not like Bradman routinely batted for 12-15 hours per match....he normally batted pretty quickly and his runs didnt come in Boycott-ish fashion,which would've required him to have inhuman powers of concentration....

And bruising batsmen through the pads mean nothing really- such freak things happens a few times and its not like Tyson made a habit of doing it.
Besides, gloves and padding from back then ( particularly the spiky gloves which they used until the 1950s i believe) did hurt considerably. I have played with my grandpa's old gloves and even though they are still in pretty good condition ( they made everything tank back then!) and your fingers do get a bit of a battering in those gloves....the plus side is, you do end up with a few 'gloved boundaries' as the spikes really carromed the ball off yer hands rather than 'kills the pace' akin to today's gloves...

There used to be this Pakistani bowler- Abdul Qardar i think - who broke a few stumps with his bowling.....that doesnt mean he was bowling at 120mph.

Even baseball pitchers cant go faster than 95-96mph and i think even short-putters and javelin throwers couldnt release a ball at much higher than 100mph at maximum.....
it could be possible in the future but doing so would require freakishly good genes and training.

 

[Richard]

I disgree with your equating Bradman with someone bowling at 120mph.
That would be the equivalent of batting half way down the pitch and still getting centuries.
Braddles was overall the best product - there wasnt a single skill where he was 'light year' ahead of the rest really- just 'noticably better' in almost all the respective skills....its not like Bradman routinely batted for 12-15 hours per match....he normally batted pretty quickly and his runs didnt come in Boycott-ish fashion,which would've required him to have inhuman powers of concentration....

No, it wouldn't have.
Concentration is simple - it's about the ability to select the right shot - how often you can do it. Not about batting for long periods.
Clearly, Boycott could do it well. However, his record indicates that he could do it nowhere near as well as Bradman.
The fact that Bradman scored so many runs indicates that there clearly was something where he was light-years ahead.
This was the consistency with which he selected the right shot. He wasn't able to survive deliveries others weren't. In his day, batting pitches were good and rarely was an unplayable delivery bowled. As David Boon once observed - 9 times out of 10, a batsman gets himself out. Bradman's speciality was that he did that very, very infrequently compared to others.

And bruising batsmen through the pads mean nothing really- such freak things happens a few times and its not like Tyson made a habit of doing it.

No? Batsmen being bruised (or injured) through pads has always been an exceptionally rare occurrance. It happened with Brendon McCullum off Gillespie a year and a bit ago - which, to prove the point, caused eyebrows to raise in astonishment.
Tyson mightn't have done it every ball, but nor does Brett Lee bowl at 97mph every ball. The fact that Tyson did it at all suggests he had some rare ability - that he did it 4 or 5 times in a series suggests something different was present.

Besides, gloves and padding from back then ( particularly the spiky gloves which they used until the 1950s i believe) did hurt considerably. I have played with my grandpa's old gloves and even though they are still in pretty good condition ( they made everything tank back then!) and your fingers do get a bit of a battering in those gloves....the plus side is, you do end up with a few 'gloved boundaries' as the spikes really carromed the ball off yer hands rather than 'kills the pace' akin to today's gloves...

Where did I ever mention gloves?
I mentioned batting pads - because while gloves clearly have improved, batting-pads have always been neccessary to be fully protective.

There used to be this Pakistani bowler- Abdul Qardar i think - who broke a few stumps with his bowling.....that doesnt mean he was bowling at 120mph.

Even baseball pitchers cant go faster than 95-96mph and i think even short-putters and javelin throwers couldnt release a ball at much higher than 100mph at maximum.....
it could be possible in the future but doing so would require freakishly good genes and training.

Breaking stumps would clearly have nothing to do with straight speed. It'd be something else.

 

[archie mac]

It doesnt affect Murali as much because OZ arnt the acknowledged 'best team' against spin bowling. Lillee accomplished a lot but Imran,Marshall,Hadlee, McGrath,etc. accomplished more.
Its just that simple.

Well India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are not considered the best teams against pace or were not in Lillee's time.

 

[archie mac]

Sorry but this is ludicrous. Pitches in the 70s,80s and 90s were the most pace-friendly in the history of post ww-II cricket in England/OZ/NZ/WI, etc. The 'unfriendly seamer's wickets' in OZ or ENG were equivalent to 'the more pace-friendly' wickets in the subcontinenet.

Well didn't Marshall or so take his wicket during this time?

Take the first series Lillee played in 6 Tests only two ended in a result.

4 Test series against England in 1975 3 draws. I could go on

And how come Richards, Chappell(G), Border, Gavaskar, Javed etc ave over 50+ during this period if the pitches were so friendly to speed?

 

[C_C]

Well India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are not considered the best teams against pace or were not in Lillee's time.

The point is, you have to perform against the best of the best AS WELL AS in alien conditions.

 

[C_C]

The fact that Bradman scored so many runs indicates that there clearly was something where he was light-years ahead.
This was the consistency with which he selected the right shot. He wasn't able to survive deliveries others weren't. In his day, batting pitches were good and rarely was an unplayable delivery bowled. As David Boon once observed - 9 times out of 10, a batsman gets himself out. Bradman's speciality was that he did that very, very infrequently compared to others.

No it doesnt clearly indicate that he was 'light years ahead' in some mental or physical attribute. It is far more probable that he was just better by a bit or considerably in most of the disciplines rather than have one towering 'Godly' skill.

I mentioned batting pads - because while gloves clearly have improved, batting-pads have always been neccessary to be fully protective.

The pads dulled the sensation- its like hitting you with a tennis ball rather than 'no impact felt' of modern pads.

 

[archie mac]

The point is, you have to perform against the best of the best AS WELL AS in alien conditions.

Bradman never played Test cricket outside of Aust and England? No one questions his right to be considered a great batsman?

 

[Richard]

No it doesnt clearly indicate that he was 'light years ahead' in some mental or physical attribute. It is far more probable that he was just better by a bit or considerably in most of the disciplines rather than have one towering 'Godly' skill.

His eyes were normal. That was medical fact.
His technique was nothing special. Even if it was, we've seen that perfect or near-perfect technique is relatively meaningless if your shot-selection isn't up-to-scratch (Ganga, for example).
Batting is almost all about shot-selection. Hence, Bradman's shot-selection must have been infinately better than most people's.
He didn't have some Jedi-like skill of knowing where the ball would pitch. You bowl one that pitched leg and hit off, it'd get him out as easily as anyone else.
But the chances of him trying to defend a ball that wasn't hitting the stumps, deliberately hitting the ball in the air, or any other faulty choice or execution of stroke, were massively smaller than anyone else who's ever batted.

The pads dulled the sensation- its like hitting you with a tennis ball rather than 'no impact felt' of modern pads.

You think batsmen these days don't notice if the ball hits the pad?
Neither old nor new pads allowed the cricket-ball to cause pain - even for extremely fast bowlers like Larwood, Lindwall, Trueman, etc. But invariably, you'd notice if it hit.
When a few of Tyson's deliveries hit, though, it caused bruising. Something no other bowler has ever done, other than freak one-offs like Gillespie-McCullum.

 

[Richard]

Bradman never played Test cricket outside of Aust and England? No one questions his right to be considered a great batsman?

2 reasons:
1, his team never played outside
2, conditions in Australia and England varied far, far more in his day than conditions around The World do, even now, in 2001-2006.