I'm sure Rachael will use a lot of words to basically say ditto.

Everyone is aware that being injured is a bad thing right? Not a good thing, a bad thing. A bowler who avoids injury has an advantage over one who has injuries. We all got that? Good.

I don't really know why we should think that wonderful cricket players should also have the ability to speak wonderfully about the game. My god, look over your commentary box of choice to see that. I'm not interested in what the people playing the game think of their contempararies, Shane Warne believed that Steve Waugh wasn't one of the best fifty players he played with or against. Ian Chappell spent most of this Test match trying to convince me that VVS Laxman was a better player than Rahul Dravid. There are THOUSANDS of examples of ridiculous things said by players. It's great Imran Khan has that opinion, I'm more interested in Viv Richards career in general than the, say, 80 or so deliveries he faced from Imran Khan.

Decent being the first important term, last 25 years being the other.

You obviously have better rum than me

Dont patronise me! Anyone can read what I posted. Lillee was injured lots but still played 70 tests for Australia + some WSC "supertests". It says a lot about Lillee that he played a lot of tests when injured.

It is the opinion of a lot of all time greats - who cant all be wrong, that Lillee and Marshall were the two greatest fast bowlers of modern times.

__________________
Mark.

I'm sure it was the opinion of a lot of greats that Hadlee and McGrath were also. You probably couldn't find someone who played Test cricket mainly in the 50's and 60's who would think it was anyone but Trueman or Lindwall. I'm not really sure what the point is. And again, I said what I said because it seems like you think being injured is a cricketers virtue, that is simply not true, surely? It may have been a show of character, and that's great, it's not about who was the gutsiest player or whateve, it's about who was the best bowler, with the most impressive career. I've heard this argument regarding Warne's shoulder injury to explain away 1996-2001 performance and it makes no sense to me - I am bewildered.

Being injured is a part of the game. Only a few players are lucky enough to go through a career being injury free. But for injury Lillee would have ended up with different career figures, who knows they could have been worse because he certainly developed as a bowler after hos first back injury when he lost that bit of pace...

Players who played in the 50's and 60's will naturally rate the bowlers from that era because they were the ones who they played against. Comparing bowlers of different eras I always find difficult. Although the game is essentially the same; pitch conditions, batting styles etc were all different. What I would say is that Trueman, Lindwall, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee..... are all great players and would have shone in any era.

One thing I do find strange - as you mentioned him in your post, is that whenever great fast bowlers are discussed Hadlee often gets overlooked, a crime IMO, and one I have been guilty of.

__________________
Mark.

BINGO. So, would it also not stand to reason that if a particular player also was dismissed an inordinate number of times against a bowler (say, I dunno, Gooch out to Marshall 5 times in seven Test matches - completely made that up but you get my drift) that they would disproportionately evaluate their skills? Based on a fraction of that bowlers career? Players are not impartial judges, this can be seen time and time again, they tend to overrate players they play with, bowlers they see the most etc. Certainly I have no problem with this being introduced as some evidence, but again, I hate to harp the point, it will always be secondary evidence than what is offered by blood and guts statistical evidence - none of us see even 10% of the Test deliveries bowled in our lifetime.

Lillee is definately a great player, a great fast bowler, you do not have an enemy in me there at all, but it doesn't add up against these other guys, PARTICULARY McGrath I think. 23.92 is just too high, I'm not quoting anything exotic there, I'd love to say it was Wasim Akram, based on what I saw - mindblowing stuff - but 23.66 is also too high.

Lillee was disproportionately injured compared to those other players (he played less cricket than all I mentioned aside from Trueman, and that was almost exclusively political - I know, I know, WSC, but a big chunk was injuries too). I'd say that's a small black mark - not a big deal, but certainly nothing to gain him extra credit, that is for sure.

Hmmm, Dont you ever notice when Australia is in trouble they all of a sudden get all decisions their way? Note 2nd test vs india, 2nd test vs Sri Lanka?

"Australia's shortcomings exposed..."

Didn't they only lose 1 test??

If Australia lose the next two or 3 then I'd start to worry, wasn't it meant to be the end of Australian cricket when the Ashes were lost yet we bounced back pretty well.

Australia lost one test match, it was also because there Batting calapsted. I think the biggest hole in the Perth test was the injury to Hayden because he is the experienced Australian opening batsman and they missed his experience at the top of the order. Also India bowled well.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.