Picking Australia's Top Three quickies after 1950

Sheek,Let it Be;this is all LSD.

You are correct, betty b. Wasim Akram and WaqarYounis formed an effective pair. Even Steve Waugh praised them. Now as a bowling coach for Pakistan, Waqar has been behind the emergence of Aamer and Asif as bowlers to fear.

I've just realised - after re-reading all comments - that no one has mentioned Waqar Younis. I know the article is about Australian greats, but much of the discussion digresses into international comparasions. Surely Waqar deserves to have his name mentioned in such company. According to my sources, in 87 tests he took 373 wickets at an avergae of 23.5, and an even better average in ODIs. I saw him live in the early 90s ODI and he was very impressive, very quick.

I've been following cricket since about 1967/68. The best 3 pacemen of my time are - Lillee, Thomson & McGrath. Everyone will agree with Lillee & McGrath, while I pick Thommo on the premise that at his best he was better than the likes of Lee, McDermott, Gillespie or Hughes, who all took more wickets. As for my all-time Aussie XI, my 3 pacemen are Lillee, Lindwall & Miller, with McGrath, Spofforth & Davidson my backup 3. As Kersi suggests above, Thomson is the fastest bowler I've witnessed live in 40 year, from all countries. As far as Aussies are concerned, Lee & Tait would probably be next, then perhaps Pascoe & Hogg. But Thommo is way ahead of all them on pace.

Although there were no "speed guns" in the last century, here are My Top 7 Aussie quickies after 1950, based on speed alone: Thomson, Lindwall, Pascoe, Lee, Miller, Lillee, Tait. I stand corrected.

Plasmodium, Lindwall averaged around 21 in 61 tests, which is very, very handy for a no. 8 or 9 batter. He also hit 2 centuries. In an Aussie all-time XI, he would bat higher than Warne, who averaged around 19. Very handy having Lindwall come in at 8 & Warne at 9.

Bayman, I think Gillespie was a terrific bowler, but I was making the point it's a bit rich to say he was in the same class as McGrath. Clearly, he wasn't. Okay, maybe I'm being picky or too literal, but Gillespie is at least a class below McGrath. BTW, that 200 wasn't against a leading cricket nation, which tends to dilute it's relevance.

Greg, The analogy between Lomu & Thomson is that fans immediately remember Lomu for 1995 like they immediately remember Thomson for 1974-76. As you point out, Lomu was effective at other times as well, as I have also argued Thomson was effective at other times. It's inevitable we cherry-pick. If you can rise to the ultimate occasion, just once, that demonstrates extraordinary ability. The greatest 'cherry-picker' sport is the Olympics. An athlete can do little before or after the Olympics, but if he can bring it all together during the comp, & especially on the day, he/she is immortalised. I might be wrong but Bob Beamon did very little before & after his unbelievable long jump at Mexico City in 1968, which stood for more than 20 years. Gone With The Wind & To Kill A Mockingbird were one-off literary classics. As a slight aside, when discussing the selection of the Australian cricket XI back in January 2000, journalist Phil Derriman (I think it was) talked about looking at a player's 'peak period'. Generally speaking, he argued you could dismiss a player's early & late tests, & look at the work he did in the middle of his career. Obviously, the 'peak period' is different for each different player. Alan Davidson made his test debut in 1953, but did very little productively until post Ashes 1956. I think cherry-picking is inevitable. Maybe wrong, but inevitable. I think we will continually be challenged by the Beatles-Rolling Stones dilemma. Who was the greater rockband? The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? The Beatles who shot through the sky like a comet, with a peak period of just 5 years - 1964 to 68 (& forgetting individual contributions). Or the Stones, who while never flying quite as high, kept rolling on like old man river, & 46 years later, still haven't officially retired.....

I agree, Garden Gnome, with your top-5. But I would like to add Keith Miller, Alan Davidson, Graham McKenzie, Terry Alderman, Craig McDemott, Geoff Lawson, Max Walker, Brett Lee and Shaun Tate. Lee and Tate were express but had injury problems. Also a good bowling coach can solve Mitchell Johnson's problems. Few hours with Lillee and Johnson's waywardness will be brought in line. He is too precious a talent to be lost.

I'd actually like to name my top 5 Aussie quicks. 3 just seems unfulfilling ;-) (1) Dennis Lillee - Perfect blend of speed, accuracy, intimidation and a great 'bowling brain'. The quintessential Fast bowler, hard to think that anyone could be better. (2) Glenn McGrath - Unbelievable accuracy and bounce. Could make the ball talk via late reverse swing or perfect seem bowling. Hit the right areas more than anyone. (3) Ray Lindwall - Arguably the most perfect fast bowler's action. The cricket makers must've had him in mind when they invented bowling. Fiercely fast, aggressive and very thoughtful. A very good batter aswell. (4) Jason Gillespie - If Lillee and McGrath had a lovechild - it'd be Dizzy Gillespie. The perfect blend of aggression, searing pace, intimidation mixed with bouncy, accurate and often unplayable deliveries. He got the best of both those two in just a slightly smaller measure. (5) Bruce Reid - Cut down in his prime with injuries, he could've been anything if his fragile frame held up. Bouncy, sharp accurate left arm bowling, he often knew exactly where to put the ball to draw the outside edge - it seemed like the batsmen were powerless to stop it.

Sheek, I hesitate very strongly before disagreeing with you, but: * Jonah Lomu was unstoppable at both the 1995 and 1999 World Cups, having missed a lot of rugby in between due to serious kidney disease. It's very wrong to suggest he was a one-hit wonder (1995), and I find it hard to believe that a person of your stature could entertain this idea. How many other rugby players have managed to be tournament best at two RWCs? Perhaps Horan and Eales (1991 and 1999), but it's hard to think of many more. And by no means am I suggesting that Lomu was only good in 1995 and 1999. I mean, pretty much any time he took the field against Australia he was a colossus (remember the match-winning try after the final siren in the "match of the century" at Stadium Australia in 2000?). Much the same could be said for Jonah against England and France. Really the only blot on Jonah's career over an extended period was that he never scored a try against South Africa. I've thought a lot about that and I cannot explain it. Against South African Super rugby sides he was a phenomenon, but somehow the Springboks had his measure. * "It must be said Thommo probably struggled for motivation at this time since most of his mates were with WSC." It was all of his own doing that he wasn't playing with his mates at WSC. * From reading your description of Thommo's career post 1975-6, it's hard to believe that he averaged 30 as a test bowler during this period. He must have had a lot of bad days at the office in between the good ones that you recount. It's a very dangerous game to cherrypick someone's best performances and ignore their overall statistics. I mean, let's take VVS's best 5 innings against Australia, and one would have to argue that he was as good as any batsman of his generation. Of course he wasn't, because one can't ignore all his other innings. Thanks for the interesting perspective on Larwood.

Thanks for your compliments -- Plasmodium, Sheek, betty b, Vinay and midfielder. We think that quickies are bad-tempered. But spinners can explode too. Look at the verbal barrage between 800 Test-wicket champ Muralidharan and the turbanned Bishan Bedi. Murali called Bedi ordinary and Bedi responded by saying that he never claimed to be extraordinary. But he bowled within the rules, he added. Bedi recently quoted the great English off-spinner Jim Laker who had once said, "My idea of watching a good match is to see Lindwall bowling from one end and Bedi from the other." Personally, I can watch the graceful Lindwall, Lillee, Holding, Prasanna, Warne and Bedi all day. But despite his record and effacacy, Murali's action, to me, is not exactly poetry in motion. Murali is exceptionally extraordinary. Perhaps a genius ahead of his time.

I agree, Gillespie was a very good fast bowler although not as great as McGrath. And a useful batsman too. But do you know that he is the fourth player after England’s Andy Sandham (325 & 50), Australia’s Bill Ponsford (266 & 22) and West Indian Seymour Nurse (258) to score a double century in his final Test; second player after Nurse to hit a double ton in his last Test innings and the ONLY one to be made Player of the Match, Player of the Series and make a double ton in his final Test. Strange? Cruel? The explanation was that Gillespie’s great performance was against Bangladesh. Also he was in the team as a fast bowler and not as a batsman. And Australia had quite a few quickies in 2006.

Sheek,Greg, Brian Statham was just slightly "slower" than Trueman. He had a fearsome inswinging yorker and rarely wasted his energy on bouncers. Accurate like Gillespie with a wicked inswinger. His average of 24.5 was inferior to Trueman's 21 and also his strike rate was higher than Trueman's excellent 49. But I suspect Statham "made" a lot of wickets for Fiery just as Thommo did for Lilee and Dizzy for McGrath. I know this is difficult to prove but I am happy to go with instinct on this one.

KERSI - great stuff again. Few people remember that Lindwall could belt the cover off the ball when he was required to. No great average but when he came in at the right moment you were glad you'd parked your car at the back of the lot.

Sheek, While I agree, mostly, with your comments regarding Thommo I think you may have been a bit harsh on Gillespie. Personally, if Nasser Hussein reckons he was pretty good then I'm prepared to believe it. With Gillespie, of course, it's slightly more difficult to rank him with McGrath because, from his debut match, he then missed almost half of the Tests scheduled during that time. His injuries were almost legendary and he suffered more than most the outrageous and the obscure. Who can forget the broken leg when colliding with Steve Waugh. When you look at the numbers McGrath wins. 563 wickets in 124 Tests at 21.64. Gillespie had 259 in 71 Tests at 26.13. However, Gillespie also scored nearly twice as many runs at nearly three times McGrath's average and we all remember the famous 201no. Mind you, that 26 bowling average looks pretty good now compared with the current crop. We will never know how many wickets Gillespie may have taken if he had played the additional 40 odd Tests he missed through injury. We certainly do not know what impact those games and those additional wickets may have had on his average. We do know that McGrath and Gillespie were, statistically, the most successful bowling partnership of all time for Australia. I think, however, we can say that if Gillespie wasn't in the same class as McGrath, as you suggest, at his top he was not too far away. He was yards quicker than McGrath and he probably beat the bat more than most. It's not his fault entirely if the batsmen weren't good enough to get bat on ball and nick it.

Greg, The precedent of showing enthusiastic support for a player over such a short span was set a very long time ago, in a very famous series - BODYLINE no less. (And do I need to mention one Jonah Lomu from rugby union!). Harold Larwood destroyed the Australian batting, & reduced Bradman to mortal status (av. 56.57) by capturing 33 wickets at just 19.52 apiece. For his whole test career, Larwood's stats were not entirely flattering - 21 tests, 78 wickets, 28.36 average. Remove his Bodyline stats, & his bowling figures are very modest indeed - 16 tests, 45 wickets, 34.84 average. Yet this hasn't stopped Larwood's name often being put forward for all-time English XIs. I happen to personally think Larwood was indeed a great bowler poorly & ignorantly used by England (apart from Jardine). I hold the same view that Thomson was a great bowler who suffered interruptions to his career at the most inopportune time. Although Thomson is not quite in the same league as Lillee or Lindwall as a quality express bowler. However, it's a mistake to assume the best of Thommo only occurred between late 1974 & early 1976. In England in 1977, with all the distractions of WSC becoming public & himself just returning from injury, Thommo bowled reasonably well to capture 23 wickets at 25-odd in 5 tests. Then during the first summer of WSC (1977/78), he captured 42 wickets at under 26 in 10 tests. All up these 15 tests saw him capture an impressive 65 wickets at less than 26 runs per wicket. In the Windies in 1978, Viv Richards reckons he never saw Thommo bowl faster than when capturing 6/77 in the 2nd test (which featured the Windies WSC players). It must be said Thommo probably struggled for motivation at this time since most of his mates were with WSC. He was forced to sit out the 1978/79 season because of a contractual dispute with the ACB. Before this occurred he had been too hot for Sheffield Shield batsmen, capturing some 27 wickets at about 14 runs apiece in only 4 matches. A case of what if..... ! In 1979 he toured with the Aussie WSC team playing in all 5 tests against Windies WSC. He obviously wasn't fully fit, but his 16 wickets at about 29 runs apiece on slow wickets was a satisfactory outcome after such a long (again) layoff. Thommo did have one final hurrah in the summer of 1982/83. After Lillee was injured in the first Ashes test, Thommo replaced him, & captured 22 wickets at the very low 18.68 apiece. Why his bowling didn't consistently live up to the expectations of 1974-76 I can only guess. But Thommo was a bit like a bowling Trumper - he probably thought he didn't have anything left to prove. While it's true we mostly remember Thomson from 1974-76, there were other jewels from his career. And we certainly remember him for a lot more than we do Larwood, & Larwood is celebrated on the back of just one memorable series. Finally, far be it for me to disagree with the judgement of Hussein & Richardson - but while Gillespie was very good, he wasn't in the same class as McGrath as a champion fast bowler.

Great comment about Gillespie. He was as important as McGraw, and never gave the opposition a break.Unfortunately most people remember his finish than his great service before injury caught up with him . Having said that, Dizzy's 200 against the Banga's should never be forgotten either!

Can you imagine how exciting it was as an 11-year-old boy to watch Thommo lay waste to the Poms in 1974-5? The next season against the West Indies was barely less electrifying. And then came all the confusion of World Series Cricket, and somehow we forget about the rest of Thommo's career. In truth it all changed for him at Adelaide Oval in December 1976, when he collided with teammate Alan Turner and did in a bowling shoulder that was already very dodgy. Prior to that collision he took 80 wickets in 16 test matches at an average of under 24 (here I am ignoring his inauspicious test debut of 0/110 in 1972/3), while subsequent to it he took 120 wickets in 34 tests at an average of 30. So really there were two Jeff Thomsons: the devastating firebrand before the collision with Turner, and the rather modest pace bowler after it. The truth is that he was never the same again after the collision. Indeed, were it not for the WSC schism he might have played only sparingly for Australia after 1976. In fact he rarely played test cricket again with Lillee, and whenever the great man was available for Australia it didn't seem that Thomson's diminished services were required. Clearly the enthusiasm expressed by people above for Thomson is based on the two Australian seasons of 1974-5 and 1975-6, and the rest of his career is ignored. Is it right to base someone's place in cricketing history on what is a relatively small slice of their career? I think this sets a very dangerous precedent. While I'm at it, let me draw your attention to the following recently written by Harshe Bhogle (http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/468395.html): "Among the many delights of being in South Africa for the FIFA World Cup final was the opportunity of sharing a dinner table with Adam Gilchrist. Inevitably the topic moved to Australia's current predicament (not a particularly unpleasant one, given they still win a lot of games) and just as inevitably he was asked what he thought was the most significant reason for it. "Two" he said, raising his fingers like he might be asking for leg and middle. "Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne." The query came immediately: not Gilchrist himself? "No, that's been the most seamless actually. But it's the bowling that wins matches and those two - actually make it those three, because Jason Gillespie was outstanding - were just special."" Gillespie may be underrated by fans and critics, but not by fellow players. For example, I've heard both Nasser Hussain and Mark Richardson say that he was in the same class as McGrath.

as the chant went, the top three are Lillee, Lillee, Lillee! Apart from the great man, Thommo pre-shoulder injury was frightening. Would put Craig McDermott right up with McGraw (as Tony Greig calls him). All of them fantastic bowlers. Wasim Akram , Richard Hadlee and Malcolm Marshall were just brilliant to watch. Glad I wasn't out there facing any of the above.