Cricinfo highlighed the following (in passing) in presenting stats related to Pollock:I'm too tired to research this right now... and am not sure the difference between the two is that statistically significant... but given the tendency to talk of Marhsall as the greatest dead-wicket seamer in the history of the game... I found the comparison worthy of note.

Marshall was not the only good dead pitch seamer Rachael, I think Walsh, Ambrose, Garner and even Lillee and Thompson could all make things happen on dead pitches, as England often found out to their cost.
EDIT: Also Botham not even as fast as the others mentioned above - had the knack of making this happen out of nothing, dead pitches IMO seperate the greats from the very goods and the rest.

__________________
Ern

Now that is where we must agree to disagree: bowling, to me, is about exploiting the new ball and what help there is in the pitch and conditions: it is about making the most of moments when domination is possible. I've no objection to bowlers running themselves into the ground on dead pitches in search of breakthrough... and admire (immensely) those seamers who can use guile (through cutters, variations in pace or whatever) to keep batsmen under control on dead pitches... but so far as I'm concerned a dead pitch is one on which no side (in any meaningful contest) should ever lose - no-one has ANY excuse for EVER losing 20 wickets and leaving enough time for the opposition to match the score on a pitch like (for instance) the typical Adelaide dog.

Bottom line: seam bowling is about getting lateral movement in the air and off the pitch... and if the pitch doesn't really allow that... getting the ball in the right place is admirable... doing something with it is even more admirable... but no seamer should really be taking wickets, and taking 20 wickets should not really be seen as the seam bowler's problem!

I was lucky enough to visit the SCG with my cousin (who lived close to Tullamarine airport Melbourne) after lunch on day 1 of the 1984 Test match Australian v West Indies, following a rash still drunk from the previous night decision to go catch a standby flight (somewhere).

Sobering up I discovered it was a surprisingly pleasant day to be their after being flogged mercilessly in the previous test matches in series by the Windies. And was not going to let minor inconveniences such as being a strange city with no arranged accommodation nor a change of clothes or luggage dampen my Sydney Cricket Ground experience (I was 20 years old had plastic and a balance I was indestructible).

But I soon realized Greg Ritchie was not. Benign pitch I suppose as close as Australia has got compared to a sub continent pitch. Murray Bennett and Bob Holland both playing for Australia.

The dapper Ritchie batting in a cap was 30 odd and spanked a Malcolm Marshall delivery to the boundary. He was in such high spirits he even gave Malcolm a bit of lip when Mal gave him a glare afterwards.

The next delivery I noted Malcolm walked back a few meters further than the previous one, and within the blink of an eye Greg Ritchie was sprawled on the deck with what appeared to be claret coming from the big fellas mouth and nose.

Looking back on cricinfo I note Malcolm Marshall 0-111 Courtney Walsh 2-118 from that innings. But I think Malcolm bowled one of the best "none-for's" I ever witnessed on that pitch, and in the big picture was at least the equal of Walsh during that inning's and possibly the ever present threat of copping a Marshall bouncer helped Walsh get some victims.

Marshall's ability to get a short ball with venom out of a low bouncing slow pitch was incredible and a testament to his ability to bowl quicker than most others.

I rate him above Walsh in this argument. Maybe just due to he had an X-factor about him.

P.S also saw a great century from ex South African ex Aussie later South African (man who showed his back to the bowlers as they bowled to him) Kepler Wessels.

Agree with Rachael (really, with the "a"?) that new ball bowling is the most important component of fast bowling - not only fast bowling, but in general, winning Test cricket matches, it's the most important commodity in the game. That said, I'd have thought few players were as good with the old ball than Courtney Walsh, who to me seemed right out of the Srinath/N Kapil Dev mode, with a lower average due primarily the support he received from the primary new ball bowlers. I would have thought in this area, Walsh was something of an expert, and certainly wouldn't have thought Marshall was the best dead pitch pace bowler of all time, whatever his credentials are in the Marshall/Trueman/McGrath debate about the best fast bowler of all time full stop.

Mashall himself thought the opposite. He enjoyed bowling with the old ball immensely and felt it was an important part of any seamers bowling in fact he couldn't understand why bowlers didn't want to bowl with an old ball.

I'm not sure I would call Marshall a seamer anyway. He was a Fast bowler who could bowl slower skillfully but the records show as he lost his pace his effectiveness dropped and he was quickly dumped from the Windies team.

__________________
Mark.

I was introduced to cricket as a sport with two (arguably three) great bowling disciplines: seam up and (wrist or finger) spin. I have been clear from the startthat your range of variation in pace (whether it be 45-55 mph or 80-90 mph) is merely a further fact.

Some seamers (Marhsll, Gough, Cairns, Hoggard, etc) may have blurred these distinctions by becoming adept at bowling cutters... but I've never seen any need for a term like "pace" bowling (as all bowlers, including the most artful of spinners, bowl at SOME sort of pace)

I've also got a major problem with coaches using "pace" and "fast" when they mean "seam": this may not matter to experienced professionals who understand what does and doesn't matter when running in to bowl... but by using terms focussed on velocity rather than quality the coaching establishment currently risks skewing the mindsets of youngsters interested in playing the game.

I'll stand by with what I said. Marshall wasn't really a seamer. He could swing and cut the ball but never really relied on seam movement. He did rely heavily on his ability to bowl at well over 90mph which is why i called him a fast bowler.

The facts are, he did lose his effectiveness as he lost pace and was dumped very quickly (forced to retire) by the Windies when he was still a decent medium pacer.

__________________
Mark.

Seam bowling is surely about bowling seam-up as opposed to looking to impart spin: even a swing bowler has to be a seam-up bowler... and whether one gets movement off the seam strikes me as incidental.

To a degree you have to bowl seam up to get swing, but you do have to have different wrist actions regarding swing/seam.

Back on topic, perhaps the reason that Walsh was effective in the subcontinent is that he was harder to score of than Marshall by bowling just that bit shorter and getting more bounce. I recall in the early 90's asking Alec Stewart in a festival game (where the opposition attack consisted of Donald, Walsh, Marshall and Danny Morrison) who was the best bowler in that attack and why. He said, "Donald is the quickest, Walsh is the hardest to get away but Marshall is the best".

Walsh also had the ability to take wickets without bowling fantastically. I remember the 2000 series v the WI when Walsh took a shed load of wickets. He didn't bowl badly but Ambrose outbowled him in every match and didn't take anywhere near as many wickets.

__________________
Mark.