@Victor-Meldrew said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
@Rapido said in Other Cricket:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Other Cricket:
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
The counter argument is that bowlers could switch off against the other end compared to Hadlee. You could just defend him, and look to score against the other bowlers.
I think it was Gower who said of Hadlee & Chatfield:
"It was like playing the World XI at one end and the Enfield 2nd XI at the other. But you soon discovered you weren't scoring that many runs against the Enfield second XI..."
I think it was Gatting and Ilford. But, actually what is interesting is - I'd heard the first part of that quote many times, but never heard the second part after "but" before, ever. Changes context somewhat.
Whoever said it I get the point they were making.
Contrast that with the Windies, Joel Garner took 259 wickets in 58 tests at under 21 ( SERIOUSLY fucken world class average right there ) but got just the seven Michelles. Loads of bowlers got more than that, but few if any were better than him.
I think I read that the first time Lillee's got more that 5 wickets in an innings was at the tail end of his career.
For me, he's the best fast bowler of all.
Well no, he got one on debut.
I love cricinfo and it's ability to settle arguements 
Lillee was a legend by the sounds of things though, our own Paddles freely admits to stealing all his ideas and methodologies.
Hmmmmmm, at a guess my top ten fast bowlers in no particular order would comprise Paddles, Imran, Waqar, Wasim, Curtly, Marshall, Garner, Donald, Steyn, McGrath.
Can't have Bond, he didn't play enough.
I'm only picking guys I saw play quite a bit and who are genuine greats of their eras.