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

Pietersen Rocks: what's with the Avatar?

Can't work out if Bell is being serious, taking the Mickey, trying to be intimidating or is scared.

silentstriker said:

Bobisback, cameeel, James_W, shaka


Why Thompson?

Click to expand...

Maybe 'cause he was the fastest of them all

I think the CW members have actually done a very good job of naming the best players (that includes batting), however, based on what I saw during this period (not stats) and for pace bowling alone, I rate them the following:

1. Lillee
2. Marshall (became greater after 1986)
3. Holding
4. Hadlee (became greater after 1986)

5. Garner
6. Imran
7. Thomson
8. Croft

Edit: I've never seen Snow in action, however he would probably be above Croft if I did.

aussie tragic said:

He still took more tests than Lillee to get to 200 wkts though

Click to expand...

But Botham was peaking with bat AND ball. How many centuries did Lillee score by the time he got to 200 wickets?

aussie tragic said:

Maybe 'cause he was the fastest of them all

Click to expand...

Yes, that means his balls would reach the boundry faster than anyone else's. There are about eight clearly better bowlers than him on that list.

Thats like me picking Kapil Dev over Imran Khan when dealing with pace bowling. Lillee I would strongly disagree with, but I can obviously see why someone would vote for him.

Thompson? Don't see it. Not over Garner/Hadlee/Imran/Marshall/Roberts.

silentstriker said:

There are about eight clearly better bowlers than him on that list.

Thompson? Don't see it. Not over Garner/Hadlee/Imran/Marshall/Roberts.

Click to expand...

Sometimes people would just rather see the fastest bowler or most agressive batsman in the team. Who would you rather see, Pietersen or Cook, Boycot or Greenidge, Lee or McGrath. For me it's Pieteren, Greenidge and Lee every time

aussie tragic said:

Sometimes people would just rather see the fastest bowler or most agressive batsman in the team. Who would you rather see, Pietersen or Cook, Boycot or Greenidge, Lee or McGrath. For me it's Pieteren, Greenidge and Lee every time

Click to expand...

McGrath and Boycott if I wanted to win. If I didn't care, then I would just go all out and take a lineup of Dhoni-Afridi in my all time team. Cause obviously thats what counts.

Lillee and Marshall (and Marshall WAS great pre-86 -he destroyed India, Australia and England in their own back yards between 83 and 85 and even the great Sunil Gavaskar sought refuge down the order during the 83-84 I v WI series).

Poker Boy said:

Lillee and Marshall (and Marshall WAS great pre-86 -he destroyed India, Australia and England in their own back yards between 83 and 85 and even the great Sunil Gavaskar sought refuge down the order during the 83-84 I v WI series).

Click to expand...

Sorry, amended my typo to say became "greater" after 1986. btw, Marshall is one of my all-time great players and I still have no idea why he wasn't an automatic selection in the 1986-2005 XI when he had 144 wkts @ 19.

aussie tragic said:

Maybe 'cause he was the fastest of them all

I think the CW members have actually done a very good job of naming the best players (that includes batting), however, based on what I saw during this period (not stats) and for pace bowling alone, I rate them the following:

1. Lillee
2. Marshall (became greater after 1986)
3. Holding
4. Hadlee (became greater after 1986)

5. Garner
6. Imran
7. Thomson
8. Croft

Edit: I've never seen Snow in action, however he would probably be above Croft if I did.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to disagree, I believe Garner has a very good argument to be on the top rung of with those other bowlers. IMO he was atleast better than Holding.

silentstriker said:

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?

Click to expand...

SS, interesting analysis and one which I can sympathise with in some ways.

To be a great bowler, do you also have to be able to bowl well in Australia? I would have thought that it would also be a pre-requisite to consider all conditions. Same for batsmen I guess. Certainly more teams have toured the subcontinent since the early 60s, no doubt.

If you accept the proposition that you have to be able to bowl well in all conditions, including but not limited to Australia, how can one rate Murali and Waqar as great bowlers given their records here? Likewise, given Warne's record in India, is he to be considered a great bowler or not? Hadlee played 3 tests in Pakistan and averaged a less-than-startling 44 with the ball. It's an interesting question really.

I think you need to be able to bowl well in all conditions. Lillee played 4 tests on the subcontinent. Can any player be judged fairly on 4 tests? It's like saying Gavaskar couldn't play because in 1980-81 in three tests in Australia he averaged 19 with the bat, and the other series he played here were during WSC and in the mid-80s nadir of Australian cricket respectively. Or Murali can't bowl because he's played two tests here and averaged over 100 with the ball (not including world XI).

But you can't say that because they're all great players. I think if, for example, Lillee had played 12 tests on the subcontinent then the point would be a more valid one. Likewise, if Murali had played 12 tests here and failed you could make the same point. But you can't.

All boils down to opinion but it makes for a great discussion.

Burgey,

That's a great point, lets get into Warne/Murali:

Warne in India averages 43, and Murali in Australia averages 63. Both of these stats hurt both of these bowlers. If I were comparing both of them, to say, Malcom Marshall, I would definatly use these against them.

The reason I don't use this against them, when comparing against other spin bowlers, is because they are by and far the best in terms of spin bowling, you can call them great in that context.

So yea, if someone said: Compare Malcom Marshall to Shane Warne, I would certainly count record in India against Warne. But if you say compare Warne to Bedi, well Warne would obvioulsy come out on top because of the comparison you are making.

If, for example, EVERY fast bowler on that list had the same problems in the subcontinent, or if his other stats were clearly superior in all other areas, then I wouldn't count the subcontinental thing against Lillee.

Also, a very important factor:

When judging non-subcontinental pace bowling greats, pace bowling in the subcontinent is a huge criteria. When judging subcontinetal batting greats, non-subcontinental batting records are a huge critera.

The reason for this, I think, is obvious. I am not singling out the subcontinent as some mystical place thats somehow more important than anyplace else. Rather, the conditions generally encountered there, not being very helpful for pace bowling, provide a very good litmus test. Meaning, you generally have to be an excellent bowler to do well there.

New Zealand or South Africa, for example, you can say the same for batting.

One of the reasons I rate McGrath as the best Aussie pace bowler is precicely that reason. He has an average of 23 in Asia (21 in India) along with a great average everywhere else.


I do think that for pace bowling, my criteria is relatively good. Obviously, its an opinion because its my own criteria, but I do think its objective enough to yield good results.

Yeah, good point you make.

I think that the increased touring to the subcontinent has been one of the best things to have happened to the older test-playing nations. Our players have learned great skills having to go there and adjust to the conditions, which makes McGrath's efforts on all surfaces over the years so great.

I also don't mind admitting that I'm probably biased towards Lillee because growing up in Australia in the 70s as a cricket junkie, he WAS cricket. Some of my best childhood memories - sitting at the SCG with my grandfather watching him tear in with the crowd going coco-bananas and chanting his name. Great days.

I also remember as a kid meeting Joel Garner - he came over onto the Hill one day during a test to have a chat with some kids - great gesture and one I haven't forgotten. I can't recall if he was injured or maybe the West Indies at that time were 2 for about 2,625 which is why he felt able to do it. There wasn't a huge crowd there at the time, I think it was day 4 of the test when John Dyson took that famous catch from Sylvester Clarke off Bruce Yardley.

Goodness me, getting all whimsical in my middle age!

Burgey said:

Yeah, good point you make.

I think that the increased touring to the subcontinent has been one of the best things to have happened to the older test-playing nations. Our players have learned great skills having to go there and adjust to the conditions, which makes McGrath's efforts on all surfaces over the years so great.

I also don't mind admitting that I'm probably biased towards Lillee because growing up in Australia in the 70s as a cricket junkie, he WAS cricket. Some of my best childhood memories - sitting at the SCG with my grandfather watching him tear in with the crowd going coco-bananas and chanting his name. Great days.

I also remember as a kid meeting Joel Garner - he came over onto the Hill one day during a test to have a chat with some kids - great gesture and one I haven't forgotten. I can't recall if he was injured or maybe the West Indies at that time were 2 for about 2,625 which is why he felt able to do it. There wasn't a huge crowd there at the time, I think it was day 4 of the test when John Dyson took that famous catch from Sylvester Clarke off Bruce Yardley.

Goodness me, getting all whimsical in my middle age!

Click to expand...

Well, I'm certainly not dismissing Lillee. He deserves to be up there. All I'm saying is that, compared to other greats, like Marshall, Garner, Hadlee, Imran, etc, Lillee did not perform as well in the subcontinent.

Does that mean he couldn't have if he had gotten more chances? No, he certainly could have done what the others did. But he didn't, and it may be unfortunate, but I have to count it against him.

I think on polls like this, we have to accentuate the negatives of bowlers or batsmen because we all know they were great. So how do you distinguish between the greats? You have to find chinks somewhere, and when focusing on those chinks, its easy to get carried away and not see anything BUT the chinks.

So again, I am not dismissing Lillee. He was a fantastic bowler. India certainly have never had anyone with half as much ability, for example.

Lillee was a '***y' bowler. People chanted his name during run up. He was explosive, he was fast, and he was lethal. No one chants McGrath's name (though they should), even though I think McGrath is superior as a bowler. I think its a matter of perception in which a bowler is held, that plays a huge part too.

Yeah, good way to look at the polls.

The other thing about McGrath (and I think you're right, he is better than Lillee imo) is that he's had to share the limelight bowling-wise with Warne, who's a far more charismatic character, so if they both grab a 4-for, warney's personality tends to overwhelm a lot of obsrevors, much like Lillee's used to.

the votes pretty much reflect the relative merits of these giants but for two major flaws, in my opinion.

1. andy roberts and john snow have been totally ignored. they deserved a few votes, for sure. and willis also deserves more than one.

2. garner has got more votes than holding. the other way around is more logical.

but on polls such as these, you cant avoid witnessing some greats being totally overshadowed by others whereas in a real cricket match roberts would demand as much respect from a good batsman as a lillee or marshall.

Bit unfair on Lillee...he only played 4 Tests in Asia....now if he'd played 14 and got that average...PS - do any other English members watch ESPN Classic.? They've been showing the '72. '77 and now '75 Ashes...

Poker Boy said:

Bit unfair on Lillee...he only played 4 Tests in Asia....now if he'd played 14 and got that average...PS - do any other English members watch ESPN Classic.? They've been showing the '72. '77 and now '75 Ashes...

Click to expand...

Garner played 3 and averaged 19.

Poker Boy said:

Bit unfair on Lillee...he only played 4 Tests in Asia....now if he'd played 14 and got that average...PS - do any other English members watch ESPN Classic.? They've been showing the '72. '77 and now '75 Ashes...

Click to expand...

But people aren't pronouncing Lillee to be a poor bowler in subcontinent conditions. They're just saying that they find it difficult to rate him above others who have similar figures and have the additional achievment of having done well there.

shankar said:

But people aren't pronouncing Lillee to be a poor bowler in subcontinent conditions. They're just saying that they find it difficult to rate him above others who have similar figures and have the additional achievment of having done well there.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

SS, It is unfair on Lillee because he played just 3 tests in the subcontinent. That is too less to discount a giant in comparing with other players for me.