Loved it, Rob. More power to your pen, mate!

Well its sad that he departed so early and left so many in tears and disbelief, thats what is God almighty decided for him. But as a person and specially as a fast bowler and lower order batsman he was a genuine character. No one can forget the setting up of his bowling mark and the run up and freeing up of his arm before he starts his spells, the smooth run up which usually starts with small steps gradually increasing and the leap before delivering or toe crushing yorkers he sent, or the just short of good length ball which rose to chests of the taller batsmen and to face or throats of the shorter batsmen at searing pace leaving very little time for the best of the batsmen of the world was a sight to see specially with such a medium size frame with respect to height and not too muscular built and that too without indulging in sledging and the way he planned to get out the best of the batsmen shows that not only he was a fearsome fast bowler but had a wise head on those shoulders which had a thinking and calculative brain too. I was fortunate to have watched him in action.

Good stuff again Rob, I'm really enjoying reading this column.

I've got one overriding memory of Malcolm Marshall. Bowling to Chris Broad, the ball pitched barely middle and leg then swung viciously late and at pace. Broad edged it and Dujon took the catch. Marshall let loose an absolute war cry of celebration, something I'd not seen him do before. Totally unplayable and he knew it. So did everyone else who saw it. I could only manage a gasp of appreciation.

The most complete fast bowler I've seen in my life (35 years so far) has to be Malcolm Marshall. In that there's pace, movement, total commitment and fear generated in the opponent. Add the rest of the West Indian pace machine to the attack and you can see why they annihilated everyone!

Damn straight I'd be bricking it if I had to face him.

I've heard a lot about him. My father loves him!

Great article Rob, and I agree Marshall was the man for all wickets.

However, are you sure you'd rate Lillee above Lindwall and Ambrose?

What remains etched in my memory is Marshall's knocking the bat out of Sunil Gavaskar's hands on a shirtfront at Feroz Shah Kotla in Delhi in the 80's

One important thing for comparsion is quality of opposition and quality of the bowler's team.
Marshall was lucky to bowl for the WI in their golden era. Waqar bowled for a good team with a good partner but there were tons of times where he couldnt go for the kill or didn't receive the support he needed (esp in the latter part of his career)
Add to that the fact that Waqar bolwed a lot on slow Pakistani wickets and also that every piece of batting equipment (esp the bat) were a lot better technically, Waqar comes out on top.

Malcolm Marshall used bowl the outswinger and the off cutters with the similar grip and action.The other Test bowler who did were( as I know) Brian Statham (England)Michael Holding(WI) and Aquip Javid(Pak)

Good work Rob. Malcolm Marshall - the greatest ever. And Waqar was a very good comparision also. You see Waqar sometimes doesnt get into the list when we talk about the best fast bowlers ever and i dont think thats correct.

Marshall is far superior to Waqar. What rubbish that bowling strike rates are more important than bowlers averages. Averages are a combination of strike rates and economy rates, therefore if you have a good average, you will most likely have a good strike rate and economy rate. If not, you will be extremely good at one (thus a good average kills 2 birds with 1 stone). What's the use of taking your wickets at a strike rate of 45 if your economy rate is 6 runs per over. This means an average of 45. This means this bowler is letting pressure off at the other end and also allowing the opposition to score a good target quickly thus allowing them to set themselves for victory. This is one of the reasons McGrath and Warne were so good they kept the pressure on and helped there fellow bowlers. Cricket is a team game, not an indvidual game.

Phil, Dubbo

All I can make my judgement on is what I saw of both of them as players in Australia.

As for Waqar, firstly I put him behind Wasim Akram. Wasim had the pace bounce swing and swerve better than anyone I've seen, remember World Cup '92.

I reckon Marshall and Wasim were on a pair with Curtly and with McGrath a smidge behind.

No doubt that marshall was the greatest-but in terms of movement off the pitch or air it was wasim akram

ah, the piece i've been waiting for.
macko vs waqo.
but to your point, rob, the only grudge that waqar fans like me have is that he never got his due in the hall of fame.
Lillee was and is still overrated (though i've never faced him) compared to people like Donald. He flopped everywhere except the greentops of oz and england.
It's nice to see someone remember waqar for what he was - a cut, bruise and battering above the akrams and lillees of the world.

Great article. I enjoyed reading it. But it fails to consider one thing when comparing the two fast bowlers.

When Waqar was playing a game in 2003, I remember a placard saying "When country needs him, he plays county".

Whether he did or not, there seems to be a perception that he made himself unavailable for the national team in favor of playing for his county.

Compare that with Malcolm Marshall batting one handed so that Larry Gomes could reach his hundred.

Your article fails to consider heart. And really, what's more important than that?

Marshall and Waqar were both great bowlers. But I guess that Waqar has an edge considering he played many matches on dead pakistani pitches, Unlike Marshall who played on supporting West Indian pitches.

While malcolm marshall was undoubtedly the finest(pace)bowler of all time (muralitharan is inarguably the best) waqar younis is definitely his successor in the world of pace bowling.
waqar took most of his wickets on comatose sub continental pitches.

Waqar Younis was wayyy better, at his time he was once the most feared bowler. His form started to run away near the end of his career, because he was getting very arrogant. Marshall was consistent till the end. BUT WAQAR WAS STILL A VERY GOOD BOWLER NEAR THE END AS WELL, he just wasn't as dangerously deadly as he USE to be. SO WAQAR WAS BETTER.

100% Correct, there was no one like MACKO. His speed in terms of not only delivering red cherry, but also thinking out batters was unmatchable. Forget D K, Andy, Mikey, and most of all forget Waz or Curtly or Pidge or Donald Duck, no doubt they were all great, but MACKO was as they say something else. Like Sir VIV , MACKO is one of a kind …..we shall never ever see the like of him again, not for a zillion years. See u in heaven, MACKO

Lovely!

I know its considered bad manners in some quarters, but why was the ball tampering controversy not mentioned? Do you not think it may have had something to do with the fact that Waqar bowled for and got so many bowled/lbw? He was actually found officially guilty of it finally. A great bowler but how great?

Marshal done splended job for his countery , he was great bowler no doubt abt it but he is not in all time greats, nor dennis lillee,denis lillee was super bowlers in australia and england but nothing in pakistan and india , due to lack of skill to bowel on barren wickets , he never like to tour in these area,same as lioke headly of newzealand and botham of england, but all west indian were super bowlers they beaten all countries in their homes and with goos strike rate,marshal was one the best among these, but on internationla scene of cricket if compare with other tha waqar is more auperior bcoz his skill to bowel all types wickets , specila for better bowlers than lillee and marshal if u see his recored how effectivly he bowled in pakistan, india and shrja , he ral crowd puller rweal; performer and real key for his , won more matchse than rest of thsese two, In my by the record by the quality and skil and his effectivness waqar is all time great bowler bcoz he unique skill of reverse swing never bowlers of that quality of reverse swiing, australia england all countries are trying upraded their bowler by this skill but they can,t be able to doso, waqar swing ability was al so great on barren wickets, he super in england australia, by all means waqar the
greatest bowler in histry of cricket who changed the cricket with old ball.

a very nice article. it'd have been interesting to c how marshall performed in the modern era, alas, he's past his playind days then, n now he's past for all reasons!! such a sad thing...but ur final point, well noted..strike rates should bear significance. am surprised that none of the 3 W's, Garner, Ambrose, Wasim Akram and our own Mcgrath and Warne figured in the list..hmm..hafta learn more!!

absolute poetry in motion..watching Malcom marshall set up a batsman..

I read some time ago that the secret to Marshalls pace was the 400 sit ups he did each day which effectively meant his torso was a bit like a coiled spring when he released the ball with that frount on action. The similarity in strike rates against all nations make it clear (if any proof ws needed) Marshall was the best ever.

That's an interesting article, but there is more to the story. With regards to strike rates, some bowlers will get good strike rates if thier aim to to get a wicket every ball, thois disent take into account the fact that some bowlers like to think out batsmen, particularly the best batsmen, often in the middle order. This is where Marshall got his wickets. Waqar, though undoubtedly a great bowler, got most of his wickets of the top order and tailend, and I'm sure the standard deviation of his strike rate against top and bottom order batsmen would be high, unlike Marshall, which you would have a small deviation. An example could be the fact that his strike rate against most teams were roughly the same.

Couldn't agree more...I think strike rates matter, especially when considering Test cricket. Average and economy rate might be more valuable in a limited-overs scenario (though a healthy strike rate makes up for a profilgate bowler!), but in a Test situation, all that a captain wants from his bowler is a wicket, never mind at what cost!

Strike rates are important, but so are averages. Rob is saying, in effect, that a batsman can score as slowly as he like, or a bowler can bleed as many as he likes, and neither matters. Utter tosh, of course.

Waqar was undoubtedly an alltime great, but he neither matches Marshall's allround excellences irrespective of conditions or opponent, nor did he maintain a high level of performance in the last few years of his career. If anything, I'd rate Akram above him, for sheer versatility and consistency.

Brilliant article Rob! Thoroughly enjoyed reading it . And for once there was no mention of people like McGrath or no gushing over the greatness of Warne. Thank you!

In 1983 Marshall bowled one hell of a quick spell in Kanpur where he had Gavaskar hopping around and ultimately the bat flew away from the hand of Gavaskar which was an ugly sight and thereafter he clean bowled Vengsarkar who did not even appear to have sighted the ball. Truly one of the greatest fast bowlers that I have ever seen.

Splendid article. Very succinct and for once those mindless statistics made a lot of sense.

This is an excellent assessment of Malcolm Marshall and Waqar Younis, two of the great attack bowlers I had the honour of watching practicing their art.

Malcolm Marshall was the greatest of all the greats, this cannot be overshadowed by the number of wickets any bowler has got.

Similarly, Waqar Younis was overshadowed by another great Wasim Akram and circumstances.

Thanks for rekindling the memories of these great players.

Excellent analysis. and Marshall didn't need to tamper with the ball to take wickets.

A very interesting article indeed. There are a few intangibles though. What about pressure being created at the other end? Marshall clearly had an advantage there. What about the team's batting strength? Again with Richards, Haynes, Lloyd and Greenidge, Marshall almost always had runs behind him.

hey Rob
i only saw Marshall bowling once in 92 world cup after which he did nt play much odi cricket but from what i heard and read he was arguably the best of his breeds. I say arguably because i have seen waqar most of his career and i think he was the most consistent wicket taker i have seen in the game.Even when his pace went down in later part of his career he had tht control over swing and tht amazing outswinger which wud lure right handers into drives and induce nicks more times than not. I do wana say though tht wasim akram ranked marshall as the best bowler he had even seen.Waqar and Marshall well as u said it is difficult to choose.I do admire you (Rob) for choosing to write abt two of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen.
Nabeel
Philadelphia
USA

What about Glenn McGrath? Wasn't he more versatile, and more lethal (with probably 75-80% of the pace) against all opponents and in all conditions than either of these two?

Have to agree with the conclusion - Marshall was THE finest all-round fast bowler I've ever seen. Evan in a decade of fast bowling greats (Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Garner, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, Donald among others), he was just a class apart.

And still sadly missed.

Cheers, Moses

For me,Malcolm Marshall was the best i ever saw to be followed by Wasim,Waquar and Allan Donald.None of the great swing and pacers have made any success in bowling on the unfriendly bowling pitches of India.As a schoolboy i remember of Marshall taking 34 wickets in 1983 on the barren pitches of India against perhaps the best players of pace bowling which included the master Gavaskar,Vengasarkar,Mohinder Amarnath,Kapil Dev.My sincere homages to this flambuoyant supremo of Swing and pace who had the nag of demolishing the best batting line-up on any given day under any weather conditions and on any given pitch.Along with my homages i salute this maestro to say that his early demise was one of the biggest blow to Cricket and the cricketing world still misses the services of this magician since his survival would have benefited the bowlers world wide & to the West Indies when they are in need of good pacers and seamers.Indeed,his death has been the biggest blow to us and it is indeed surprising that the most talented have the shortest lives.Eg :Malcolm Marshall,Bruce Lee And Florence Griffith Joyner.We do not understand the ways of the almighty but all that i can say is that our hearts are still with you and you will always be a source of inspiration to us.May your soul rest in peace.

Abhay Saraf
B/49,Shatdal C-H-S,
Azad Lane .
Andheri-West.
Mumbai - 400058.
India.

A great read...He really was a great bowler..In the last decade, Wasim and Waqar would be my picks...

Malcom marshall I thought was not the fastest of these men, but certainly smartest and best of them all men but certianly smartest and best

I liked the piece

superb analysis !!
just wanna say keep up the good work !!
a person can't get these analysis other then cricinfo.com !

thank you!

I firmly believe in averages, despite Einstein's assertion that if you stand with one foot in ice and the other in scalding water the average is comfort.

Cricket is a statistical game, the result of a match being the statistic of which side averaged more runs for the fewest wickets -- a statistic in the course of being replaced in limited-overs games by another statistic.

Strike Rates can be deceptive, especially when comparing different bowlers over time, or contemporaries who mainly bowled in different conditions.

It's interesting to note tha preent day bowlers generally have lower SR's than was thecase, say, in the 1950's and 1960's. But surely that doesn't prove that the moderns are better or even more penetrative bowlers. They benefit from the increased pace of the game, the far less defensive mindset. The art of the long defensive innings, a la Jackie McGlew or Hanif Mohammad, is almost extinct,to the great benefit of present day SR's.

Similarly, conditions in England in the days before covered wickets and when summers seemed damper and pitches greener and less familiar to visitors than they now are, favoured English as opposed to non English bowlers. So too did England's greater exposure to weaker Test opponents in the earlier post WWII era, and their tendency to play more Tests in favourable home conditions.
These factors, for example, go far to explaining Trueman's excellent SR, which, however, does not make him the finest pace bowler of his era.

SR's can be deceptive.

NO BOWLER IN THE HISTORY COULD TORTURE OR TOY WITH A BATSMAN LIKE MALCOLM MARSHALL. ASK JOHN DYSON.

Having seen both of them very closely over their careers (and being on the receiving end as an Indian), let me put it this way: Marshall generated sheer terror and cold fear in our hearts, whereas we only worried a wee bit about Waqar (and actually, we worried more about Waqar's mate Akram than him). Those who have seen the 1983 Kanpur Ind-WI test might tell you that it was quite simply the most intimidating display of fast bowling ever seen on the docile Indian wickets in the past 30 years (at least, if not till date). Minor things like the Man's (Gavaskar) bat getting knocked out of his hand and flying away contribute to that perception.

My regards and deep respect for Malcolm Marshall. May the name be revered and the legend always live on.

Even when West Indian cricket was mass-producing fiery, world beating fast men, Malcolm Marshall stood out with his pace, hostility and thinking brain. For cricket fans like us, who have been devouring the sport for the past three decades, Malcolm Marshall holds the ultimate mantle of the world's greatest fast bowler with Dennis Lillee. I still believe his strike rate would have been better than what it turned in the end had that there not been another great fast bowler, Curtly Ambrose, to share his spoils at the closing days of his fast bowling career.

As far as Waqar Younis is concerned, one must consider that he played in the days when laws were severely against the bowlers, with field restrictions, No bouncers and all. But well, these are two Cricket Legends, the world ( far apart ) have produced.

The setting-Kanpur Green Park;The context-India v/s West Indies 1st Test Match in 1983 just

after India dethroned windies as World Champions in one dayers. The match situation-

Windies scored around 480 in the first innings and India started batting late on the second

day. The most reliable bet-India would survive with probably for loss of an early wicket.

Cut to reality-Malcolm Marshall ball in hand launched into that sprinting runup with barely

a stop for delivery, watched by millions of Indians for 1st time on TV, quite literally

bombarded Indian top order wreaking utter devastation reducing them to 4 for 10 in five of

the most devastating overs of lightening pace bowling ever. The TV audience was as much

shell shocked as the Indian batsmen-fending, praying for life, moving unintentionally to

squareleg. Let me reiterate it was utter devastation if you just watch Vengasarkar leg

stump taking flight(even if he was brave enough to strike the first bounday).

Marshall is simply the most menacing fast bowler ever-no two questions- the much revered

Lille and the most elegant of fast bowler's Micheal has to step backwards.

Macko's impression on my schoolboy's mind was so powerfully intoxicating that for a long

time i felt it a sacrilege to call anyone else a fastbowler! Surprise, surprise now even

the trundlers of 130Ks are termed fastbowlers. In late 70's up until late 90's you had

Windies super fastmen and the rest, brisk pacers at best. Why, just hear commentators term

Imran as just fast medium.....and imagine what the real fastmen were like!

Coming back to that series of 1983-Marshall continued wreaking havoc with Indian batting

for the rest of the series claiming 33 wickets in all.....if he hadn't such illustrious

fellow bowlers like Micheal Holding and Roberts(though much less effective by this time)his

share might have been ridiculously high like 60!

Macko you are truly once in a millennium fastbowler.....i bet millions of Indians who have

seen you on those black and white TV images would have deeply wept at your untimely demise.

My own personal sorrow grows only with passing time.....rest in peace my friend!

Really one of the best pieces I have come across in recent times. Would love to see such a statistically satisfying analysis on Wasim too

We mustn't forget that economy rates tell a lot about the bowler, as do strike rates about batsmen, in giving a second angle to look at. Strike rates show how lethal a bowler is; economy rates show how consistent and miserly. Look no further than Glenn McGrath, where taking wickets was never the whole story.

He really was the greatest fast bowler of all time.

Macko is unique among fast bowlers, and the best I have ever seen. I was lucky enough to watch him during his time at Hampshire, and I really can't recall seeing a bowler for whom the expectation of taking a wicket was so great. It was always going to happen... just a question of when. Mark Nicholas used him well (what a weapon to have at your disposal), and Marshall charging in towards the end of the day as the dusk closed in was certainly what the opposition wanted to see least. My favourite bowler, and probably my favourite cricketer of all time.

I quite agree with you. Marshall is your man on any given day. Waqar could wipe out the tail but struggled with top order batsmen with surer footwork and those who could handle fast bowling a great deal better.

Waqar was better than Marshall simply because he learnt his trade and bowled on bowling graveyards of the subcontinent.

I only saw him toward the end of his career, but never have i seen a bowler who excited the crowd - who people would pay their entrance fee just to watch him bowl. Not even Shane Warne comes close to creating the buzz around the ground Marshall did as the captain tossed him the ball.

A very good analysis. Although, being a Pakistani, I'ld have liked to see Waqar come out on top, but I agree that Marshall was indeed the best, especially because he delivered for his team whenever it was needed most - against all opponents and on all types of pitches. A while ago, Richie Benaud named an all time world XI. At the risk of challenging Benaud's acumen, I wonder how could he have missed out Marshall. As an aside, I think Mcgrath is a better bowler then Lillee and Akram is better than Waqar - again because Mcgrath and Akram proved their mettle in the most unfriendly conditions.

You obviously forgot the greatest Indian fast bowler ajit agarkar whose fastest 50 wickets is still remembered(in india) even if people want to forget him

Both Marshall and Waqar were great bowlers, personally should I be captain and desperate for a wicket with both in my team Malcolm would be first.No disrespect to Waqar or his fans.Malcolm was a briliant bowler who out thought a lot of his victims. His untimely death was a massive loss to the cricketing world.

A truley lovely piece on MM i.e. the master. THE greatest pace/seam bowler and until Warne came along greatest bowler of anytype type to throw down the red leather. WY strike rate is remarkable and so was MM's but if we are considering pace men i would throw another name into the hat. Wasim Akram. sure he doesnt quite have the average or strike rate of MM and WY but was an artist like MM, in fact he said MM was his inspration/mentor. A huge number of wickets in Test and ODI's, complete control over the cricket ball. but dont take it from me, take it from what i consider to be the best two batsmen since the Don. Viv said he never faced anyone faster and Lara said he could get him out anytime even if he was set. My alltime post war bowling line up would be MM,DL,WA and warne. eddy .dulwich

Well said true about Malcolm,it would be a dream for WI have Malcolm,Garner,Holding,Roberts,Walsh, Ambrose,Croft with Grenich/Haynes,Richards etc again Lloyd was fortunate not forgetting our older stalwarts Sobers,Kanhai,Buther,Solomon,Gibbs

where does that leave Joel Garner? Ave 20.94, strike rate 50.8.

I myself once did this comparison, and found that I would rather have a Marshall or Waqar then a McGrath. May be at the other end I can live with McGrath or Sultan of Swing, but Waqar and Marshall were really awesome.

Waqar never toured India in his pomp, a fact he regretted later, thats one reason for his less succces, but thats how it goes. Waqar should have done better in Australia, in glimpses he did, but there was always something missing, a niggle here, a niggle there, problems with footing. He and Wasim were not brought up on hard pitches with bounce and pace if they were I don't think anyone would stand a chance, to even stand with Marshall is a greater achievement for Waqar, simply because of where they learned their cricket, and where they played it.

As an example I have heard praise for Bond, yes a good bowler, but how many tours of India and Pakistan he has done, same goes for Brett Lee.

Even the ever ridiculed Akhtar is far better then many of these guys who we call good or great. To bowl in Pakistan, or in India or in Lanka or even in Windies is the hardest thing to do.

I will always rate bowlers from these countries higher then others. AS far as your comparison goes, I call them equals.

Good article, strike rates are indeed important. But I would say averages are just as important. The price you pay for each wicket is very important in the context of the game. Aktar has a better strike rate than Mcgrath, is he a better bowler? I don't think so. Strike rates fail to take into account the pressure generated by stopping the batsmen scoring, leading to wickets at the other end. If your looking at the stats you have to look at all of them.

Smashing piece, a well-researched, intelligent and entertaining argument. With Marshall, there was also that bouncer which gave him more menace than Waqar. Definitely first among equals.

Waqar could destroy any team on his day, but it happened a lot more often against Zimabawe and some dodgy New Zealand sides than against teams with decent batsmen. In fact his record tends to suggest that compared to the other great bowlers of his time he was a bit of a one-trick pony. When the ball wasn't swinging he could be quite tonkable.

At his best he was brilliant, but he needed things to go for him. Personally, I'd pick McGrath and Ambrose ahead of him as well as Marshall.

Statistics hardly ever paints a complete picture especially when we do not have all the possible relevant data. It would be interesting to consider the dropped catches, the close LBW decisions that could have gone either way, the no-balls that claimed wickets, etc. Experience and technology (Hawk-Eye and all that!) will help us make better meaning out of the data we collect and provide us with food for interesting discussions.
Cricket is a batsman's game in the sense that runs ultimately decide the result of the game and the rules are generally made in favour of the batsman.

I fully support your final remark: let's give strike rates their due. They often say much more than averages.

Marshall was a small frame big GIANT. Marshall came about when West Indies had fast bowlers like peas in a can and yet he stood head and shoulders above his peers. He was the most the feared bowler when bowling around the wicket. That guy could have generated pace and bounce even on sand.

I can't help but feel that some are being a bit unfair to Dennis Lillee. Now I'm going to be perfectly honest here and say that I've never seen him play live. However, when people question his record in Pakistan, I have to ask two questions- 1)how good were the other fast bowlers in that series? and 2)is it fair to question someone's career greatness based on three tests? The answers are 1)not very, and 2)I don't believe it is. Certainly, no less than Richie Benaud and Sir Donald Bradman had enough faith in his capabilities when they named him in their Greatest XIs. And if you consider the fact that he came back from a back injury that would have ended most careers, plus the fact that he bowled to genuinely great batsmen, plus that he outdid other great bowlers in similar conditions (such as Thompson and Snow), PLUS the fact that he was considered a master of both seam and swing, then I'd have to say that he'd definitely make my Greatest XI- along with Malcolm Marshall, of course.

This is a great article, one which gives bowling strike rates it's due importance.

In today's game a bowler can get away with a bad strike rate, because runs are scored at a faster rate (4+ runs an over). But before the Steve Waugh era, many matches ended in draws because bowlers did not get enough time to get a side out twice. That's when a bowler like Marshall could win matches by striking fast and often. Mediocre teams, which often played for draws, had no place to hide.

This also puts into perspective Shane Warne's performance, who has an average of 25+ and a strike rate close to 60. If he did not play with the fast scoring Aussies, he might not have taken so many wickets.

In my opinion, on a World XI Marshall would definitely be the number one strike bowling option under all conditions.

Who would be a better bowler...5/200 of 30 overs or 5/100 of 40 overs...the first one has a better strike rate..the second one a better average?

Interesting article...so if we give prominence to strike rate, does it matter at what cost do the wickets come? I think it does.
An example -

Ajit Agarkar has a strike rate of 32.8 with an average of 27.43, while Mcgrath has a strike rate of 34.2 with an average of 22.02 in ODIs...Now if i just give strike rate the due, then obviously Ajit Agarkar is a superior bowler to Mcgrath, but if i give averages the due then obviously a superior bowler to Agarkar. Hence, statistics do not prove things without looking at what they both mean. Batsman may use blocking tactics against some great bowlers to deny them wickets, while at the same time losse their wickets to lesser bowlers in an attempt to score freely. This may result in a better bowler having a lower strike rate than an average bowler.
Also, in the earlier eras when the pitches were uncovered and more bowler friendly it was easier to have a lower strike rate, compared to the modern era wherein improved picthes, smaller boundaries have resulted in runs being scored at a faster pace, hence higher strike rates. In such a scenario you would probably depend on a bowler who concedes less runs per wicket, than a bowler who concedes more runs than wicket.
Hence, it puts into perspective the performances of bowlers like warne, murali, who have higher strike rates but lower averages.

the problem that many with lillee is that he got nearly 2/3 of his wickets in Australia, which is very helpful to fast bowlers. it's difficult to say how he would have done in fast bowler graveyards such as india and pakistan b/c he didn't play there much.

Well........ what remains etched in my memory is not of Marshall's glory days of 1980's but some seemingly innocuous moment in 1992 when Marshall swung Sanjay Manjrekar literally in and out with a peach of a delivery...... If someone could bowl such a ball well past his prime there is no need to say what a great fats bowler he would have been in his prime.....

If Michael Holding was "Whispering Death" Malcom Marshall was "Thunderous Death" .....

May his soul rest in peace .... Always. Miss you Macho !

A Good article, but i think its futile to compare bowlers from different era.
Regarding the averages Waqar played against INDIA at the very begining and at the twilight of his career, not when he was at his peak.
Plus no one mentioned the lack of support he got from the slip fielders through out his career.
Thirdly if ball tempering had to do anything then why not the bowlers in the county circuit made the ball dance the way he did.
Dont have any arguments in favours of Malcolm as i did not see him much.

Oh yah, Marshal and Waqar were great fast bowlers along with McGrath, Donald, Ambrose, Imran, Lilli, Croft and Garner but WASIM AKRAM and HOLDING were the most dangers bowlers cricket has ever seen. specialy WASIM AKRAM who was champion fast bowler and ever greatest, at his prime WASIM AKRAM was most dangers in any condition of the wicket and weather. :WASIM AKRAM WAS EVER GREAT:

Marshall is the Viv Richards of bowling. Simply the best by miles.... Absolutely no comparison...

What assures me that Bedi's comments are nothing but an unfortunate reflection of jealous pooh pooh, is the fact that both India's Harbhajan Singh and Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan (amongst a host of others) were meticulously scrutinised by the ICC and both were justifiably cleared. However, you don't hear Bedi saying anything about Harbhajan Singh and many more who continue to bowl unnoticed with their usual and same action; but, he (Bedi) contiues to begrudge the wiles of the unmatchable and Great Muralitharan - knowing that if he (Bedi) was half as good in his day, he would surely have been the God of India up to this day!

With regard to the question of suing, I do not believe that sensible human (especially at this level) should be exhibiting this intolerable atmosphere of animosity against each other whereby it should be settled in a law court - Bedi should just stop being jealous and shut up!

Ardon Nelson

Everyone remembers his extreme pace and unplayable movement. But what about his best bowling ever - half pace, in a cast, with a broken hand?